Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Local Government and Planning (Amendment) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Schedule

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT OF CONTROL

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 8, line 47, at end insert—
(2) In section 89(4) and (5) of that Act for the words "£50" there shall be substituted the words "£100".

Mr. Steven Hastings: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that it might be for the convenience of the House if with this we take Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 8.

Mr. Speaker: If that is the wish of the House, so be it.

Mr. Hastings: I begin by expressing my thanks to Lord Nugent and to others on both sides of another place for all their work in amending the Bill. It may not be the most wildly exciting or glamorous measure to be debated this Session. Nevertheless, I hope that the House will bear with me. These are necessarily rather complicated amendments, and in fairness to the local authorities which will have to implement the Bill when it is enacted I think that we owe them a proper explanation. Hon. Members on both sides of the House may feel that to have something of a little bromide today will not be too bad a thing after what we suffered yesterday.
The amendments are all concerned with penalties. They fulfil an undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 15 May in Committee. He said that the Bill would be amended in another place so as to increase certain of the maximum penalties for offences involving breaches of planning control and breaches of control over listed buildings.
Those who are familiar with the operation of the enforcement provisions in town and country planning legislation will know that they are sometimes criticised by planning authorities, amenity societies and hon. Members

because they are said to lack teeth. When somebody deliberately flouts planning control, or ignores listed building control, the penalties available when there is a successful prosecution seem to be inadequate for the offence and do little to deter others from committing the same offence.
The statutory provisions for offences and penalties are all in part V of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The difficulty is that some of them have been amended by the Criminal Law Act 1977, while others remain the same as they were in 1971. Inflation has made the level of penalties fixed 10 years ago out of date and meaningless. That is the main reason for this group of amendments, the effect of which is to bring the penalties for certain breaches of planning or listed building control to a more realistic level in the light of present-day money values.
I understand, as I think is customary with any statutory penalties, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has been consulted about the proposed increases and that he agrees with them. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that in due course. If, as I hope, the amendments are approved, their practical application will be for the courts to determine in the light of the seriousness of the offence which the planning authority is prosecuting. I hope that I shall not be straying outside the normal bounds for a Private Member's Bill in saying that many hon. Members will welcome the imposition by the courts, especially the magistrates' courts, of heavier fines for this type of offence.
Lords amendment No. 1 involves the insertion of new subparagraph (2) in paragraph 2 of the schedule. It has the effect of increasing from £50 to £100 the maximum amount of each daily penalty now specified in section 89(4) and (5) of the 1971 Act. This is an increase in the maximum daily penalty available on summary conviction for an offence involving respectively failure to secure compliance with the requirements of the enforcement notice and permitting use to continue when it is in breach of the requirements of the notice. In each case it is a penalty on summary conviction for a continuing offence. There will have been a prior conviction for the same offence.
Amendment No. 2 inserts a new subparagraph in paragraph 3. It increases from £50 to £100 the amount of the maximum daily penalty specified in section 90(7) of the 1971 Act. That provides for a penalty on summary conviction for an offence involving the continuing contravention—or failure to prevent the continuing contravention—of the requirements of a stop notice served by the planning authority under section 90(1) of the 1971 Act. In this case, also, the offence is a continuing one and there will have been a prior conviction for the same offence, which carries a maximum penalty of £1,000 on summary conviction.
Amendment No. 3 inserts a new subparagraph (2) in paragraph 7. Its purpose is to increase from £400 to £1,000 the maximum penalty specified in section 93(5) of the 1971 Act on summary conviction for an offence involving the reinstatement or restoration of buildings or works which have been demolished or altered, in compliance with the requirements of an enforcement notice. That is just as serious an offence as other offences in part V of the 1971 Act involving breaches of planning control, where the maximum penalty on summary conviction has been increased to £1,000 by a provision in the Criminal Law Act


1977. I do not know why some and not all of those penalties were increased at the time. There seems no logical reason for it.
Amendment No. 5 inserts a new paragrah 9A in the schedule. Its purpose is to increase from £50 to £100 the amount of the maximum daily penalty specified in section 98(4) of the 1971 Act on summary conviction for a continuing failure to secure compliance with the requirements of a listed building enforcement notice. Again, that is a penalty for a continuing offence. There will always have been a prior prosecution and conviction, for which the maximum penalty already stands at £1,000.
Each of the amendments was welcomed in another place as providing a more effective financial deterrent to the offences to which they relate. I therefore commend them to the House as a means of enabling the courts to enforce the law more effectively when a breach of control has occurred.
I come now to the fifth and final amendment, No. 8, in the group concerned with penalties. Its purpose is to increase the maximum amount of each of the penalties specified in the 1971 Act on summary conviction in a magistrates' court for an offence involving contravention of the regulations which control the display of outdoor advertisements, namely, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1969.
The present maximum penalties are £100 and £5 respectively for an offence involving the unauthorised display of an advertisement and for an offence involving its continued display after a first conviction. Those maxima are now derisory, particularly in relation to the income that is often obtainable for unlawful outdoor advertising. The amendment raises them to the more realistic level of £200 and £20 respectively, to which I hope the House will agree.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West): That is not enough.

Mr. Hastings: My hon. Friend may be right. Perhaps he will have the opportunity to deploy his argument about that in a minute or two. The figures of £200 and £20 respectively were suggested in another place, so the penalties can be expected to have a deterrent effect on people who may otherwise have ignored the provisions for the control of outdoor advertising. Those fines are regarded at present more as a licence fee than as a penalty.
Leaving aside the amount of the fine, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned that there should be a more effective financial deterrent for such activities as fly-posting and failing to obtain the planning authority's consent for advertisements events. I therefore commend the amendment to the House as a useful step in that direction.
We all have plenty of experience of fly-posting at election time. I discovered that there is special legislation that has kept us all out of prison so far. I understand that the Outdoor Advertising Council is in favour of those penalties. I hope that I am right, but I believe it to be so. It is surely in its interest that all advertisers, not simply the members of the council, should behave lawfully.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I remind the House that the hon. Gentleman has said that we are taking amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 8 with amendment No. 1.

Mr. Cormack: This is the first time I have had a chance to speak on the Bill. I had to be abroad on Select Committee business when it had its Second Reading. I give my heartfelt congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) on his commendable initiative in introducing the Bill. I add my thanks to our noble Friend Lord Nugent for the time, work and trouble which he has taken.
This necessary measure is long overdue. Therefore, I reluctantly sound a slightly critical note. While I agree emphatically with the Lords amendments, which have been so beautifully and concisely described by my hon. Friend—he gave us all a lesson in how to describe and define the difficult—they do not go far enough. I believe that they will still not have the deterrent effect which I, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) and most people who are concerned with the preservation of our heritage would like. One must set the penalty in context. These days £100 is little more than the price of a business lunch for three or four people.

Mr. Ted Graham: Oh.

Mr. Cormack: It is true. That is the price one would pay in London and in many parts of the Midlands, too. It is scandalous. The food is overpriced, but that is entirely another issue.
One has to set the penalty in context. It seems to me that many people will not be deterred by the amounts. Sorry statement as it might be, there is a good case for index-linking fines to keep pace with inflation. Had fines kept pace with inflation, we should not be talking in terms of £100 or, in the case of the advertising penalties, of £200 and £20, but of sums nearer £1,000.

Mr. Hastings: That is a most interesting suggestion. I have never considered it or heard it before. I suppose that one difficulty might be that if that were done for this legislation, the magistrates' courts would need a computer hard at work on a variety of offences, which might be an objection.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend tempts me to tread an interesting path. At the time of the annual wage round to which we are accustomed, it might be possible for fines to be adjusted on an index-linked basis. Across a whole spectrum of activity and offences, fines do not have the necessary deterrent effect. Frequently one reads of people leaving court laughing because they have paid a derisory amount. My hon. Friend tempts me. Perhaps in the new Session of Parliament I shall introduce a Private Member's Bill for that purpose, which we might find extremely useful.
Let us digress for a moment. We could not suggest that for offences such as this and for many others people should be imprisoned. The prisons are too overcrowded and that would be wrong. However, those people should be punished. I do not believe that the measure is punitive enough. We can all tell sorry tales of developers with a wanton disregard for the properties which they acquire and a determination to pull them down and to make money. I like the French system whereby if someone pulls down a listed building—or its equivalent there—he is not allowed to capitalise on it or to build on that site.
Many such people wantonly pull down buildings because they know that the fine will be a mere fleabite and


that the gains from their nefarious activities are considerable. I do not like that. There was a case in Wheathampstead some years ago where a marvellous barn was pulled down. It is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), and I do not wish to trespass. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) can tell a similar story much more graphically than I. There was a case in his constituency, recently where a distinguished farm building—but not one of national importance—was destroyed. No doubt my hon. Friend will tell us about that.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth because he attempted earlier this year to place a similar measure on the statute book. I am delighted that he is in the Chamber. All hon. Members, particularly those from Staffordshire, will know of the appalling manner in which the Wedgwood company has behaved towards Barlaston Hall. No words of condemnation can be strong enough to describe the attitude of the management of the Wedgwood company towards that hall. I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recently took his courageous and sensible decision. It was not an easy decision to take, particularly at such a time, but it was right.
Such deeds might well have been prevented if there had been proper legal penalties. In so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire has recognised that, I warmly congratulate him. In so far as he has sought to tackle the problem, I thank him. I also address my congratulations and thanks to the other place. I am delighted that the Government have been so helpful. I am pleased that the Bill is being given a swift passage, and I am particularly delighted at the Opposition's constructive and sensible attitude.
We all know that the heart of the hon. Member for Edmonton, who presented a mammoth petition about historic houses some years ago, is in the right place. He was the first chairman of the all-party heritage group, which I now have the honour of chairing. He has made many contributions. Although I thank everyone involved, I feel that in a sense this is an opportunity missed. We should have been more punitive and should have ensured that the penalties were more exemplary.
I welcome the Bill and wish it a speedy passage on to the statute book. However, I hope that we shall turn our attention to the subject again. Perhaps a major Government tidying-up measure will be introduced next Session. I am thinking of a measure that would unite the parties. We need measures that unite hon. Members. Any hon. Member who thinks of what happened here yesterday will realise that we must not polarise and divide too much. One of the great things about this Parliament is that hon. Members in all parts of the House have embraced the common cause of our heritage.
Let us hope that this is the beginning and that within another year or so we shall see legislation that imposes proper penalties. In that way no sleazy developer or landlord who disregards what is on his estates would be able to watch buildings crumble or to pull them down. No such person would then be able to benefit from his philistinism or appalling greed. Such people are not in the majority. Most developers have a sensible and constructive attitude. One need think only of archaeology in the City of London where developers deliberately held off—far beyond the requirements of the Act—so that proper excavations could take place. As the hon. Member

for Edmonton and I know from our work on historic houses, there are many enlightened landowners and their number far exceeds the few philistines. Nevertheless, those who behave badly towards our heritage should be punished, and the punishment should deter.
I am delighted to add my support to the Bill. I hope that it will soon be enacted. However, let us return to this subject before too long.

Mr. John Heddle: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) because I shall not be able to stay in the House long enough to celebrate what I hope will be this necessary Bill's satisfactory conclusion. It cannot be enacted too quickly. Generations to come will be grateful to my hon. Friend for having spoken so persuasively today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) rightly said, we are custodians of the commodity that the Bill seeks to protect and preserve. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that that commodity—our heritage—is passed on to generations to come in as good a condition as we received it as custodians.
Although I join my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West in congratulating the noble Lords, I depart from him, with great reluctance, when he suggests that the penalties and fines that the amendments modestly seek to increase should be linked to inflation. I wholeheartedly agree that the penalties—even given the amendments—are by no means a sufficient deterrent. However, even if we were to index-link the penalties to bring them in line with inflation—which, happily, the Government are bringing firmly and, we hope, lastingly under control—they would serve no useful purpose in relation to the property vandals and to those who seek to make a quick buck by encroaching upon the property of others stealthily and with the aid of a bulldozer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West reminded us about the example of Wheathampstead, and Barlaston Hall, which is in his constituency.

Mr. Cormack: No, it is not.

Mr. Heddle: I stand corrected. Barlaston Hall lies adjacent to my hon. Friend's constituency. I should like to remind the House of one case in the West Midlands. I highlighted it in my Town and Country Planning (Protection of Listed Buildings) Bill, which I introduced in January 1981. Monkspath Hall, in Solihull, was a listed, grade 2, Georgian, two-storey farmhouse which stood in several acres. It might not have been the most magnificent example of Georgian architecture, but it adorned the landscape. As it was listed, it should have been preserved. Whether accidentally, coincidentally or intentionally, a bulldozer and its driver—acting on the instructions of a firm of demolition contractors to demolish a barn and a range of outbuildings across the road from Monkspath Hall—found themselves on the opposite side of the road on a Sunday afternoon and wilfully demolished Monkspath Hall. The amendments do not include a fine that can replace the Georgian splendour and glory of that building.
For acts of such wilful vandalism imprisonment and punitive fines are the only reasonable remedy. I support the amendments. However, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West and hope that, if a Bill is introduced along the lines of the


Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act in the next Session, further strength will be given to the amendments to ensure that the fines are punitive. They could be based on the value of the property that has been demolished and on the cost of building a facsimile of that property. In that way the amendments would have some teeth and would act as a deterrent against property vandals who want to make a quick buck.
10 am
Such vandals are few and far between, but there are capital gains to be made from the demolition of a listed building and the allocation of the site for a factory, an office block or a range of houses, bungalows or flats. Such is the value of land with planning permission today that it often greatly outstrips the value of the property on the land. Therefore, there is an incentive for those vandals without conscience or regard for the present other than their bank balance and certainly with a contempt for the future. Such is the temptation wilfully to demolish a listed building that the penalties must be set at a level which takes account not only of inflation, but of the potential capital gain and the cost of reinstatement.
Prevention is better than cure. The amendments, modest and welcome as they are, will unfortunately not provide a cure. Nor will they provide the prevention.

Mr. Graham: I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). He will recall that when we discussed these matters in May, he and the Minister recognised that increased penalties had deliberately been omitted. We all understand the nature of a private Member's Bill. It is much better to get something on the statute book than to be too ambitious.
As I read the reports of the proceedings on the Bill in another place, it was felt—and the Minister has already alluded to this—that some substance should be put into the Bill. We are discussing not law and order, or what has happened this week, but something real and important to thousands of my constituents and to everybody in this country, namely, law enforcement.
Everyone would say and mean that he is a law-abiding citizen, but the irony, as we all know from constituencies surgeries, is that those who are law-abiding citizens somehow feel that when a particular part of legislation impinges on them, their home, their garden or their home extension, they have a little licence to go outside the law.
In essence, we are trying to make the penalty better fit the crime. We are discussing bringing up to date penalties originally envisaged as being appropriate. However, everyone has admitted that although the penalties will be brought more up to date they will in no way be consistant with the original value.
For instance, it was decided in 1971 that £400 was the appropriate figure on summary conviction. That was increased to £1,000 in 1977. We know that £400 in 1971 is worth £1,400 in 1981. When legislation is passed we ought to anticipate some modest inflation and therefore, in effect, the £400 of 1971 ought to be £1,400, £1,500 or £1,600 now.
Let us consider the sum of £50 in 1971. If it were brought into line with inflation, it would be £185 in 1981. The Minister must tell us why, if £50 was thought inappropriate, the correct figure of £200 was not included. The upgrading of £50 to £100 is, in effect, a devaluation

of the £50 to £27·20. The relative values of £50 in 1971 and £100 today mean that the £50 has been downgraded to £27·20. We have reduced the deterrent effect to little more than half the 1971 level.
The hon. Members for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) and for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) have pointed out that a fine of £1,000 or £2,000 will not stop a villain who is determined to get his way when stakes are high, with the possibility of a capital accretion of up to £1 million.
I shall concentrate on the milieu with which I am most familiar—street scenes in my constituency. After eight years in the House I know of dozens of instances of people getting very angry about the way that some traders, often small dealers, exploit the procedural and legislative processes and decide to go ahead with a development for which they know they need planning permission but do not bother to apply for it.
The community is involved in costs, because the planning officer is informed that, for example, motor cars are being sold on a forecourt. The enforcement officer tells the dealer that he is using the land for a purpose that contravenes the land use designation and that he must stop. If the dealer does not Stop, the council will issue a contravention notice and, according to the committee cycle and whether there is delegated power in the council, that process can take weeks or months.
When the notice is issued, the dealer's solicitor will probably tell him to apply for planning permission, which takes more time. Often, just before the application is due to be considered by the planning committee it is withdrawn to be revised. By that time, six or eight months will have elapsed since the dealer started carrying on the business that was in contravention of the land use designation.
If the committee refuses to grant planning permission the dealer may appeal to the Secretary of State, who will ask both parties whether they are prepared to deal with the matter in writing. The dealer may say that he wants a personal hearing, and that will take another month or two, although the Government have recently speeded up the process.
The dealer can get the appeal deferred because of holidays or illness. If the appeal is dismissed, he will have 28 or 56 days in which to comply with the enforcement notice. If the notice is not complied with, the local authority has to take out a summons and more time-wasting procedures can be adopted. In the light of how much public money can be spent when someone deliberately exploits existing provisions, a fine of £100 on summary conviction is woefully inadequate. I can understand the problems for any Government in discussing a narrow range of non-compliance with the law. I can understand the wish of the Home Office to consider the matter in a wider context. I shall not oppose the increases, but I hope that the Minister will tell us when there will be a comprehensive review of the penalties. I am not asking for a date, but I am asking the Minister to assure the House, planning officers, town clerks, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and others, that the Government, in a busy life with far greater problems than those covered by today's discussion, will give some attention to it.
We are discussing not only the need to punish the person who deliberately fails to comply with the law but whether we are in danger of bringing the whole concept of complying with the law into disrepute. Although an extension to or the use of a garage may affect the houses


on either side, or the four houses across the road, streets are used by thousands of people. When they see, if only for a short time, that the street scene has changed and deteriorated, and that the environment has suffered, they will ask: who will stop it? Whose responsibility is it? When it takes a long time to deal with such a matter, they will cynically say that people can get away with anything in 1981. However, we know that they cannot. We know that we have the legislative framework and the financial penalties, to enable us to take action but we want to be able to demonstrate, even to the innocent person who genuinely makes a mistake, that if he persists he will be dealt with quickly.
I am a great believer in the appeal system. A person who has tried to get something through but has failed should be able to appeal. I have an interesting case in my constituency in Enfield, relating to industrial sewing machines. The Minister will recall that people are often incensed with the appeals system, because it produces the wrong result for them if the appeal is upheld. While I regret that appeals are often upheld, I am still a firm believer that a person aggrieved by a decision of a council is entitled to use the law.
In setting these penalties we must ensure that people understand that if they persist in exercising their rights and incur the community in the expenditure of hundreds of pounds in pursuing and enforcing committee time and so on, they must know that eventually they will be faced with a fine of £1,000, which I hope will be increased, and that for every day thereafter they will be faced with a penalty not of £50 or £100, but £200, which is the figure that I think should be imposed.
10.15 am
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West said that he is concerned with the sleazy developer who deliberately seeks loopholes. I am grateful for the remarks that he made about my interest in the heritage. Those of us who live in urban environments and are urban animals perhaps appreciate more than others the beauty, the value and the traditions of our countryside. I am in favour of anything in this series of amendments that will deter people from damaging listed buildings.
Before the debate I contacted Mr. Stonard, the planning officer of the London borough of Enfield—I have respected the work of Mr. Stonard and his staff for years—about cases involving listed buildings in Enfield. They occur very infrequently. There are interesting statistics on enforcement notices in the last year. Three hundred cases of contravention of planning regulations relating to listed buildings were brought to the attention of the council. Of those 300, 147 were reported to the council. By the time that the enforcement officer visited those buildings and pointed out to the person that he was doing something against the law, the development had been stopped. Some people did not know that they required planning permission. Once an enforcement had been served, 28 of that 147 resulted in appeals to the Secretary of State.
Lord Bellwin in another place said that 6,000 appeals were being considered by his Department in the current year. The 28 cases in Enfield were finally resolved and 13 summonses for non-compliance were issued. I do not have the result of the summonses, but it is certain that if the summons were in connection with failure to comply, the present procedures would follow. Those 300 cases which

caused aggravation eventually boiled down to 13 summonses. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is better if we can, by persuasion and example, to ensure that such matters never reach the court. That is the purpose of the legislation. If we can frighten people away from pursuing the matter until we are forced to take them to court, that is good.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire has the privilege of bringing together some helpful nitty gritty measures. I shall speak to the amendments that relate to advertising, wasteland and tree preservation when we reach them. My constituents will be far more affected by successful prosecutions than by many other measures that we pass. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that he takes fully on board the fact that we are endeavouring to make his job more effective and meaningful. He has my full support. Nothing does more to bring disrepute to this place than passing laws to be carried out by planning committees and town clerks and finding at the end of the day that that has been ineffective.
Later we shall discuss wasteland, where the taw is useless because we do not have the additional measures covered by the amendments. In time we all learn, but sadly, people outside this place wait to see what we do and then spend their time finding ways around it. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and Lord Bellwin at least have let people outside know that we recognise the problems and are trying to do something about them. On behalf of the Opposition, I give my full support to the amendments.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): It might be convenient if I intervene in the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). We appreciate the way in which he has handled the Bill.
The debate has been of considerable importance because it has shown the widespread feeling that something should be done to stiffen the enforcement procedures, with particular reference to listed buildings. It has also shown an underlying anxiety that what we are about is insufficient, first, as a deterrent and, secondly, as an exemplar of the way in which the Government should pursue their fines policy.
I shall seek to reply to some of the points raised by hon. Members. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) has to leave the House shortly for a prior engagement of which he has given me notice. It is, therefore, right that I should refer to the problem that he raised relating to Monkspath Hall. It illustrates effectively the type of problem that we are up against. That case was prosecuted in the Crown court. A fine of £1,500 was levied on the tractor driver who demolished the building and £2,000 on the firm involved. Naturally, the two sums attracted a fair amount of adverse comment.
Solutions which involve the restoration of a damaged building—and this was also the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth was making—give rise to considerable problems. My hon. Friend said that no fines will ever replace a listed building. Of course, that is a fact. In discussing the correct policy towards fines in relation to the destruction of something which is irreplaceable the House is really dealing with something which is intangible.
In some cases involving listed buildings, replacement or restoration can make a substantial contribution to the environment being seen in much the same light. I refer to the destruction of buildings in a Georgian terrace, for example. In that case, a frontage could be replaced. Indeed, many buildings in London as we know have been replaced in this way. A frontage can be replaced if it has been illegally removed. That would create more or less the same impression. However, the removal of a building of great antiquity such as Monkspath Hall, particularly if it is isolated, cannot, I suggest, be adequately compensated for by any fine which the House could devine.
The problem is not, in my judgment, the question of what should be the appropriate fine, but what should be the appropriate system which would prevent that building ever being attacked by the demolition people in the first place.

Mr. Heddle: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for kindly giving way on this particular point. I am also grateful to him for having kindly answered the point raised in my brief speech and for enabling me to listen to his reply before I have to leave.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, I submit that no fine will ever replace a listed building which has been willfully demolished. However, might I direct my hon. Friend's attention to the other point that I raised in citing the Monkspath Hall incident? The site, now having been demolished, is suitable for some alternative form of development. It is suitable for industrial development. The site upon which Monkspath Hall stood is probably worth between £150,000 and £200,000 witht he benefit of planning permission for industrial development. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measure of the fine should in some way relate to the enhanced value of the site previously occupied by the listed building?

Mr. Shaw: I disagree that the level of fine for the destruction of something which is so unique as the dwelling in question should be different from the level of fine for the destruction of buildings of which there are many and which form part of a more compressed environment, as opposed to the unique environment involved in the building to which my hon. Friend refers.
I would take modest issue with my hon. Friend in seeking to find the most ideal solution in fines policy. The Government wish to find the best practical means of preventing the incident from occurring. That is our prime policy. Although there are problems with fining we feel—and the Home Office shares our view—that something more than increasing penalties is needed.
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance. We are exploring what can be done to secure a new approach to this kind of problem. He should take some encouragement from the fact that the incidents which have given rise to complaints made by my hon. Friend and others, deplorable though they are, have collectively required us to examine the problem to see whether we can find an alternative approach.
The group of amendments increase penalties for offences involving breaches of planning and listed building control. They have to be seen in the wider context. Frankly, the wider context is that they come at the end of a pretty long process. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) rightly drew attention to the

enormous amount of time and the considerable complexity of the process through which these things have to pass before eventually a court action is brought and successfully concluded with a fine being imposed.
We should remind ourselves that the Bill deals with many other matters than penalties, which rightly are the subject of these amendments. The Bill deals with planning control and amends the system to allow, in particular, the enforcement of procedures on historic buildings to be carried through more efficiently.
The overall position is that the final sanction of a fine or court case is indicative that the process of reason and the process of persuasion, for which the local planning authorities now have considerable power and opportunity, have failed. We wish to stop somebody causing an intolerable nuisance by securing the removal of a scrapyard from a semi-residential area. We also wish to deal with somebody who simply refuses to modify some precious feature of a listed historic building to restore it to its original architectural condition. When persuasion and discussion have failed, it is difficult to design the right mechanism in the fines procedure to alter the situation.
The Government have emphasised what is a common view on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Edmonton referred to it. Enforcement is never to be lightly undertaken by a planning authority. We take that view because sometimes it is all too easy for a planning authority to issue an enforcement notice as a holding action, with the result that almost automatically there is an appeal to the Secretary of State, who is left to sort the matter out with the help of the planning inspectorate. As the hon. Member for Edmonton said, that takes time.
All that, in addition to being time-consuming, is administratively costly. That is one reason why we have advised planning authorities in my Department's circular 22/80, issued last November, that enforcement action should be taken only as a last resort when everything else has failed to produce the result which the planning authority wishes to achieve. This implies, by its being the last resort, that reason and persuasion have failed. One could be dealing with an unreasonable person or with someone who refuses to accept that the value to the community—which, after all, the planning authority has to represent—of the building or of the alteration of the premises in question is sufficient to cause him to change his action.
10.30 am
That puts the planning authority and the individual in the position of having to litigate, at a time when the courts have substantial amounts of business on hand, on matters which, in community terms, probably rank for higher priority. So, we have not only the long administrative process through which such matters must go before they reach litigation, the increasing signs that reasonableness is departing from the argument and that unreasonableness is taking its place, but also the question of placing the action within the timetable for court hearings, which again is a matter of time. In terms of priority it may not be a proper use of the time when so much else of greater importance has to be determined by the courts.
It is not surprising that, if planning authorities take our advice seriously, recourse to law should be the final process through which they go. It is therefore all the more important to have realistic penalty provisions available to the courts because magistrates and judges will increasingly


see that the offences brought before them by planning authorities are serious matters, sometimes involving highly-profitable operations that are being carried out unlawfully and for which the only realistic restraint is the heaviest possible financial penalty. If the courts do not impose realistic fines on offenders, as the hon. Member for Edmonton said, they contribute to the reluctance felt by some planning authorities to take enforcement action. They fear that at the end of a long and arduous administrative process there will be only derisory results.
That is particularly true of one of the matters covered by amendment No. 8 concerning advertisement control. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) stressed the need for realistic fines for the amusement arcade industry and also for that industry in central London known as the sex industry. While amendment No. 8 may not go as far as he would have liked, it is a useful step in the right direction.
I come now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, arid also referred to by the hon. Member for Edmonton on index-linking fines in some way so that they can keep pace by what is considered to be an adequate amount and include some compensation for the erosion of inflation. Such an index-linking provision for many fines exists in section 61 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. In view of the comments that have been made in the debate, it is right that we should urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to use that section to ensure that fines are at least maintained at their money value at the time of their introduction or at the time of their last increase. Whereas this morning we are considering for the first time enshrining in the Bill a provision for fines at significantly more realistic levels than obtained heretofore, it is right to seek discussions about section 61 of the Criminal Law Act with a view to reviewing these fines on the lines of the reviews that should apply to other fines as a result of changes in the value of money.
These provisions need not necessarily be our last word on the subject of fines. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth would have liked greatly increased penalties for unlawful demolition but, as the House will recognise, that would have been substantially out of the scope of the Bill. We are dealing here with certain anomalies and deficiencies in the procedures, we are putting right some of the administrative problems and we are adding at least a more realistic policy for fines.
We shall attempt to remedy the longer-term problem posed by hon. Members when a suitable opportunity occurs in a Government Bill. I acknowledge the strongly-held expression that we cannot allow the problem to remain, assuming the passage of these amendments or the revision of such matters in line with the provisions of the Criminal Law Act 1977. There may be an appropriate occasion for us to look at the whole question of the deterrent value of fines in the area of demolition and to seek an additional Government vehicle for carrying that through at a later stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire has dealt in some detail with the amendments. He referred to the Outdoor Advertising Council and amendment No. 8. I can confirm that the council supports the increased penalties. The advertising industry is frequently under attack by those who seek to preserve the heritage, but it

continues to act responsibly in these matters and I pay tribute to the way in which it has supported the amendments.
We are all anxious to see the entire system of planning and listed building enforcement, and appeals, working more effectively and efficiently. That is the main purpose of the Bill. This is very much a co-operative effort between my Department and local planning authorities, and I should like to put on record that we are most grateful for the help that we have been given at all stages from the local authority associations in the preparation of the Bill.
That is not quite the end of the story. If, as I hope, the Bill, as amended, will shortly obtain the Royal Assent, it provides for some subordinate regulations to be made governing enforcement appeal procedures, and we shall want to consult both the local authority associations and the Council on Tribunals about the provisions to be included in those regulations.
In these amendments we have the prospect of more realistic fines. The pressure for that arose on Second Reading and was taken up by noble Lords in another place. We are grateful that they are now before us for consideration. With these amendments the Bill becomes a more effective instrument and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire deserves the congratulations that he has received from both sides of the House as he seeks to complete what perhaps he may regard as his "swan song", at least regarding legislation in the House. I think he would be the first to agree that although it is a short Bill some of the provisions are somewhat complex. I thank him for taking the Bill successfully through all its stage in this House. I support the amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 14, line 7, after "the" insert "listed building".

Mr. Hastings: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
May I say how grateful I was to my hon. Friend the Minister for his reception in the previous debate of the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) and for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) about the extent of the penalties, and particularly for what he said about index-linking. It was most encouraging, and I am sure that both my hon. Friends will appreciate it.
This is a minor drafting amendment to make it clear beyond doubt that the reference in subsection (2i of the new section 97A of the 1971 Act is to a listed building enforcement notice. It is a legal point, included on the advice of parliamentary counsel.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 15, line 5, at end insert—

'Trees

10A.—(1) In section 103 of that Act (enforcement of duties as to replacement of trees which are the subject of tree preservation orders) in subsection (3) (appeals to the Secretary of State) the words from "and the provisions" to the end of the subsection shall cease to have effect.

(2) The following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection:—

"(3A) An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Secretary of State.

(3B) The notice shall indicate the grounds of the appeal and state the facts on which it is based.

(3C) On any such appeal the Secretary of State shall, if either the appellant or the local planning authority so desire, afford to each of them an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.

(3D) Where an appeal is brought under this section, the notice under subsection (1) of this section shall be of no effect pending the final determination or the withdrawal of the appeal.

(3E) On the determination of an appeal under this section, the Secretary of State shall give directions for giving effect to the determination, including, where appropriate, directions for quashing the notice under subsection (1) of this section or for varying its terms.

(3F) On such an appeal the Secretary of State may correct any informality, defect or error in the notice under subsection (1) of this section or give directions for varying its terms if he is satisfied that the correction or variation can be made without injustice to the appellant or the local planning authority.".

(3) In subsection (5) of that section, after the words "enforcement notice", in the second place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "a copy of which has been".'

Mr. Hastings: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
We now come to the subject of trees. A great deal of attention has been focused on the question of hedgerow trees during the passage so far of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. Where there is an enforcement notice, the amendment is relevant. I know that the matter interests my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) in particular.
The amendment inserts a new paragraph 10A in the schedule. The effect is to amend the existing section 103 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which deals with the enforcement of a local planning authority's powers to require the replanting of a tree or trees, in accordance with the requirements of a notice served by the planning authority under section 62 of the 1971 Act. The amendment repeals the concluding provisions of subsection (3) of section 103 of the 1971 Act, from the words "and the provisions" to the end of that subsection, and substitutes for them six new subsections, numbered (3A) to (3F), which correspond to similar provisions for enforcement appeals—in sections 88 and 88A of the 1971 Act—which are being amended by provisions in paragraph 1 of the schedule.
These six new subsections specify how an appeal is to be made to the Secretary of State against a notice requiring the replanting of a tree or trees; what procedures the Secretary of State must follow in dealing with any such appeal; that the requirements of the notice are to be suspended until the appeal is finally determined or is withdrawn; and what additional powers of correction or variation of the notice are available to the Secretary of State when he is determining such an appeal. All these provisions are exactly comparable to the parallel provisions for the Secretary of State to deal with enforcement appeals which are being amended by this Bill and it is clearly sensible that these two sets of appeal provisions should be the same.
Subparagraph (3) of the new paragraph 10A makes a minor drafting amendment to subsection (5) of section 103 of the 1971 Act, so that it refers to the copy of an enforcement notice which has been served by the local planning authority instead of referring to the notice itself.
The amendment was supported by the Opposition in another place. I commend it to the House as a worthwhile strengthening of the powers available to planning authorities to ensure that tree planting required by them takes place in practice.
In case all this is not crystal clear, in case some hon. Members share the difficulty that I had when I first saw the amendment—that of distinguishing the wood from the trees, if I may so put it—I shall explain it as simply as I can. The amendment is concerned with what happens when someone appeals to the Secretary of State against a notice in which the planning authority has required a tree to be replanted. One reason for an appeal in such circumstances may simply be to delay having to carry out the replanting work. It is therefore important for the Secretary of State to be able to operate the appeal procedures quickly and fairly. At present he cannot do that, because the procedures are too cumbersome.
You may not believe it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the effect of what I have sought to describe should be to speed up the procedure and get the trees replanted more quickly.

Sir Marcus Kimball: Will my hon. Friend confirm that nothing in the amendment does anything to affect the exclusion from any form of planning control that already exists for trees under 3in in diameter?
My hon. Friend will be familiar with the Merthyr report on hedgerow and farm timber, which was published in 1955, and which is relevant. I think that Lord Merthyr was the last person, with his committee, to look in any depth at the problem of tree preservation orders, hedgerow timber and amenity trees on the outskirts of towns and villages.
In paragraph 167 of its report, the committee said that it was essential that the felling of young trees under 3in diameter be free from any form of control, unless they were subject to a tree preservation order. I hope that nothing in the amendment will affect that.
One of the principal recommendations came later in that paragraph. The committee considered that the future maintenance of adequate stocks of hedgerow, farm, park, roadside and amenity trees would be best secured by educating and persuading farmers, landowners and local authorities rather than by additional financial or other assistance, or by a strengthening or alteration of the existing tree preservation orders.
I hope that what we are doing in the amendment will not destroy the spirit of the Merthyr report, which has ensured that we have, especially as a result of the efforts of the Forestry Commission in 1973—"Plant a Tree Year"—a considerable investment in amenity trees, particularly on the outskirts of our villages and towns.
This is a complicated subject. It is significant that my hon. Friend, who was drawn only eighteenth in the ballot, should have had such success in getting the Bill to this stage. I do not want to say anything that would destroy his chances of getting it on to the statute book. To succeed in coming first with one's Lords amendments on the last day of the season for Private Members' Bills is no mean achievement. I sincerely hope that if my hon. Friend can put at rest our fears about trees with a diameter of under 3 in, the passage of the Bill will speedily reach its conclusion.

Mr. Graham: The Opposition welcome the amendment. There is today more concern about the continuing


loss of trees than there has been for a long time. It is not accidental but is the result, not of a campaign, but of years of good work by many people. I do not include myself among them. They recognise the need for a positive attitude to the conservation of our countryside and the preservation of the amenity that those of us who live in towns enjoy. They realise that almost overnight, sometimes as a result of vandalism, but often as a result of the actions of careless and unthinking people, the landscape and environmental beauty that we enjoy could be destroyed.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) and I are the only Members in the Chamber who served on the Standing Committee on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. I have learnt a great deal about this subject from him and others, and also about the great importance of positive action. There are conflicts between the needs of the farmer, the nation and the visitor to the countryside. Our legislation is aimed at ensuring that all three interests are fairly treated.
I wish to refer to tree preservation both in the countryside and in urban areas. The London borough of Enfield has some gorgeous leafy parks. Many of its streets have trees. The many large houses now being demolished for redevelopment have beautiful trees in their grounds. The problem is that comprehensively monitoring and mapping the tree population in the borough calls for large resources. Enfield has a first-class record for doing what we would call the right thing. I understand from the planning officer that because of the problem with resources Enfield is often limited simply to ensuring that when a large house is to be demolished for redevelopment the trees in the grounds, if they have to be cut down, are replaced.
In 1980–81 Enfield dealt with nine tree preservation orders. They were all related to redevelopment. When I was chairman of a planning committee in Enfield some years ago, there were two bitter rows about tree preservation. The trees concerned had been part of the landscape for the lifetime of those living in the area. Yet the developer could develop the land properly only if the trees were felled.
The preservation of trees is a sensitive issue, especially in urban areas. The countryside has come through the most tremendous blight in the history of trees—Dutch elm disease. It was catastrophic. Yet it still has trees on an enormous scale. There is now a problem with hedgerows being removed to permit more economic farming.
The amendment is valuable to my constituents to whom a tree—not trees, or a forest—is vital. The one, two, three or four trees that make a beautiful feature, provide a habitat for birds, bees and insects, and present continuing seasonal change, are the heritage of my constituents.
The amendment is designed to stop desecration. It will insist upon replacement and speed up the procedure. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) for this package. We are concerned not only with stopping people from doing what they should not do, but with making them do what they should do. On behalf of the Opposition I give the amendment warm support.

Mr. Giles Shaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) questioned whether anything in the amendment might undermine the Merthyr report and the important work that has flowed from it. I assure him that there is no intention to make any alterations

in the present arrangements which the report caused us to adopt. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) raised the question of tree preservation. We are aware that tree preservation orders and their administration by local authorities have caused some difficulty—partly because information about the location of the trees and the problems occurring is not easy to acquire, and partly because the orders are a cumbersome user of administrative time. The hon. Gentleman knows that changes have been made in the handling of tree preservation orders.
The House may not know that a working party has been established by the Association of District Councils. No doubt the London boroughs will wish to contribute to it. It will review the whole operation of tree preservation orders and the way in which local authorities are empowered to handle them. I can repeat the assurance given by my noble Friend Lord Avon in another place. The Government will look carefully at the recommendations of the working party. We agree that trees must be preserved where they contribute an important part to our urban., as well as our rural, landscape.

Sir Marcus Kimball: The powers of the local authorities compulsorily to prune a tree are important. Unless those powers are enforced, people will allow trees to become derelict and use that as an excuse for cutting them down. Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance about compulsory pruning?

Mr. Shaw: I accept the importance of pruning in the culture of trees. However, local authorities are hard— pressed both for staff and resources. Although I agree that anything that seeks to undermine the proper maintenance of trees should be regretted, local authorities must determine what resources they can allocate for pruning purposes.
The amendment substantially helps enforcement procedure. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 15, line 5, at end, after the words last inserted. Insert—

"Waste land

10B. The following section shall be substituted for section 104 of that Act:—

PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE AS TO WASTE LAND.

104.—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where a notice has been served under section 65 of this Act.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this sect ion, if any owner or occupier of the land on whom the notice was served fails to take any steps required by the notice within the period specified in it for compliance with it, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.

(3) If a person against whom proceedings are brought under subsection (2) of this section as the owner of the land has, at some time before the end of the period allowed for compliance with the notice, ceased to be the owner, he shall, upon information duly laid by him, and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, be entitled to have the person who then became the owner brought before the court in the proceedings.

(4) If a person against whom proceedings are brought under subsection (2) of this section as the occupier of the land has, at some time before the end of the period allowed for compliance with the notice, ceased to be the occupier, he shall, upon information duly laid by him, and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of


his intention, be entitled to have any person who then became the occupier brought before the court in the proceedings.

(5) If—

(a) a person against whom proceedings are brought under subsection (2) of this section as the occupier of the land, has, at some time before the end of the period allowed for compliance with the notice, ceased to be the occupier; and
(b) nobody then became the occupier,
he shall, upon information duly laid by him, and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, be entitled to have the person who is the owner at the date of the notice brought before the court in the proceedings.

(6) If, after it has been proved that any steps required by the notice under section 65 of this Act have not been taken within the period allowed for compliance with that notice, the original defendant proves that the failure to take those steps was attributable, in whole or in part, to the default of a person specified in a notice under this section—

(a) that person may be convicted of the offence; and
(b) the original defendant shall be acquitted of the offence if he further proves that he took all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with the notice.

(7) If, after a person has been convicted under the preceding provisions of this section, he does not as soon as practicable do everything in his power to secure compliance with the notice, he shall be guilty of a further offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20 for each day following his first conviction on which any of the requirements of the notice remain unfulfilled.

(8) Any reference in this section to the period allowed for compliance with a notice is a reference to the period specified in the notice for compliance with it or to such extended period as the local planning authority who served the notice may allow for compliance with it."

10C. The words "who served the notice in question under section 65 of this Act" shall be added at the end of section 106 of that Act (appeal to Crown Court).

10D. In section 107 of that Act (execution and cost of works required by notice as to waste land) the words "who served the notice" shall be inserted after the words "the local planning authority"—

(a) in both places where they occur in subsection (1); and
(b) in subsection (2)."

Mr. Hastings: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 10.

Mr. Hastings: These amendments are concerned with waste land. Section 65 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 enables a local planning authority to serve a notice on the owner or occupier of neglected or unsightly land, referred to as waste land, requiring its proper maintenance—in other words, that it should be tidied up. Unfortunately, section 104(2) of the Act, which deals with the penalty for non-compliance with a waste land notice, has proved ineffective. It can operate only if positive action is taken to continue or aggravate the existing position, which means if the waste land is rendered even more wasteful.
Non-compliance by itself does not attract the penalty. The effect of Lords amendment No. 7 is to remove that deficiency by amending section 104 to provide that non-compliance with the waste land notice constitutes an

offence, and by creating a second offence in the event of failure to comply with the notice of a conviction. That is the effect of the new paragraph 10B.
11 am
The new paragraphs 10C and 10D are formal and minor. Paragraph 16 of schedule 15 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 amended section 65 of the 1971 Act to replace the words "local planning authority" by the words
district planning authority or the council of a London borough.
By an oversight at the time, consequential amendments needed in sections 106 and 107 of the 1971 Act were not made, and they are now effected by paragraphs 10C and 10D.
Lords amendment No. 10 provides for the repeal of paragraph 30 of schedule 16 to the Local Government Act 1972, and is simply consequential to the new paragraph 10C in Lords amendment No. 7, which provides the new definition of the authority which may appeal under section 106 of the 1971 Act.
These amendments were supported in another place, and I commend them to the House as a useful strengthening of the waste land provisions of the 1971 Act, which will be particularly helpful to planning authorities in heavily populated urban and inner city areas.

Mr. Graham: This is a useful additional weapon in the armoury of a planning committee.
I am minded of two situations in my constituency where this would be helpful. In one, development took place along Hertford Road in Edmonton. It is bounded by Rosemary Avenue. The development resulted in a site being land-locked. The development, which took place 80 or 90 years ago, had grown from Hertford Road around Rosemary Avenue, and the situation became impossible. The builder and the developer decided to leave the land as it was. It was waste land. Although vehicles cannot get into it, it is surprising how much rubbish, old furniture and other obnoxious materials have found their way there. It is often difficult to establish to whom the land belongs. I finally established that it belonged to a local estate agent. It is his responsibility, and it did not need much pressure from the local authority to chivvy him, but the person concerned has to be chivvied repeatedly because the land will never be used. The neighbours of the plot find the situation most aggravating, particularly in a hot summer.
The other example is in College Gardens, where there is reasonable access, but the land is not capable of being developed by the owner. As a consequence, the only incentive for him to keep it tidy is a reminder from people who are able to wave a stick and warn him of the penalties for causing a nuisance.
The new legislation puts teeth into existing legislation which has proved ineffective. People living around such areas would gladly do something, but it is not their responsibility. This legislation provides the local council with more muscle to say to the two people involved "If you do not take action, you will be forced to do so and to do it properly, and it will cost you money". At College Gardens the weeds have grown. The man chops them down every year, but more than that is required. He needs to spend more money this year so that less money needs be spent in the next four or five years. However, the council's powers are limited.
I therefore warmly welcome the amendment because, with the others, it will be a useful addition for improving the environment, particularly in urban areas like Edmonton.

Sir Marcus Kimball: Both the last groups of amendments on tree preservation orders and this group, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) said, should put teeth into the powers of local authorities. However, the one thing that would put teeth into those powers would be to persuade the Ordnance Survey to reproduce again—something that it has not done since 1906—the 25 in.—or whatever the equivalent is in the continental scales that we now use—Ordnance Survey map of Great Britain.
I remember a technical boundary dispute which was solved by the position of one scrub rowan tree on the side of a mountain which was shown on the 25 in. survey. Local authorities would find life a great deal easier, particularly when dealing with small areas of land and individual trees which were shown on the 25 in. survey, if Her Majesty's Ordnance Survey responded powerfully to the plea: "We are very sorry that we have lost the 2½ in. map, the most beautiful map that has ever been produced, but if you have any surplus capacity will you seriously think about reproducing the 25 in. map of Great Britain?" After all, we are a densely populated island, and there is no reason why we should not have a really accurate map on which all these things are properly recorded.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) said about the Ordnance Survey. I shall investigate the matter and write to him.
If amendment No. 7 is accepted, we shall improve the prospects of enforcing the recovery and treatment of waste land. If we add to that the recent arrangements for the registration of land in inner cities for, we hope, disposal, and the changes that we have recently announced in the Minerals Planning Bill, the House will provide considerable prospect for the improvement of derelict areas, whether caused by ancient mining, whether they occur in city centres, or whether they occur because land in the ownership of many authorities has not been disposed of. It is a comprehensive approach to the removal of many scars in the cities to which the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) referred.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 8 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 17, line 24, at end insert—
20A. In Schedule 9 to that Act (determination of certain appeals by person appointed by Secretary of State) in paragraph 2 (which relates to the powers and duties of the person determining an appeal)

(a) in sub-paragraph (1)—
(i) in paragraph (b), for the words "subsections (4) to (6) of that section" there shall be substituted the words "section 88A and section 88B(1) and (2) of this Act";
(ii) in paragraph (d), for the words "subsections (4) and (5) of that section" there shall be substituted the words "section 97A(1) to (4) of this Act"; and
(iii) in paragraph (e), for the words "sections 88(4) and (5) of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (3E) and (3F) of that section; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (2)—
(i) for the words "88(2)" there shall be substituted the words "88(7)"; and
(ii) for the words "97(2)" there shall be substituted the words "97(6), 103(3C)"."

Mr. Hastings: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Here we are concerned with the powers of inspectors. The amendment inserts in the schedule a new paragraph 20A after the existing paragraph 20 on page 17 at line 24. It seeks to make some minor consequential amendments, which were overlooked when the Bill was drafted, in paragraph 2 of schedule 9 to the 1971 Act.
The purpose of schedule 9 to the 1971 Act is to specify the powers and duties of inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State to determine certain of the planning and enforcement appeals which are made, in the first instance, to the Secretary of State. For those purposes, an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State carries out the same functions in determining one of those appeals as the Secretary of State would carry out if he were determining the appeal. Paragraph 2 of schedule 9 to the 1971 Act gives the inspector who is to determine an appeal the same powers as the Secretary of State has under part V of the 1971 Act. Since some of the powers of the Secretary of State to determine enforcement appeals are being amended by the Bill, it is appropriate to ensure that the powers of an inspector continue to correspond exactly to the new powers given to the Secretary of State. That is the effect of the amendment.
In case there is any doubt about the precise effect of the amendment, it may be helpful if I explain that it does not alter any of the classes or categories of planning or enforcement appeals that are to be transferred for decision by an inspector whom the Secretary of State appoints to decide an appeal. For example, the majority of ordinary enforcement appeals will continue to be decided by an inspector, but all mineral and listed building enforcement appeals will continue to be decided by the Secretary of State on the same basis as they are decided at present.
If I may be allowed another instant of the time of the House, this is the last that I shall have to say on the subject, and I should like to express my deep thanks to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his officials for all their help, without which it would have been impossible for me to bring the Bill as far forward as it has got. My hon. Friend was good enough to say that it might be a useful swan song. That is indeed so, because I doubt whether there will be another song from me on this basis. When it comes to a Private Member's Bill arriving on the statute book, it is a first sheep as well as a swan song. I hope that it will prove useful.
I want also to express my thanks to my hon. Friends the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) arid for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle), who have contributed a great deal to our debates and to the Bill. Last, but far from least, I thank the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), who speaks with vast experience of these matters and who consistently has been very helpful on every occasion that we have debated these provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 10 agreed to.

Indecent Displays (Control) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

INDECENT DISPLAYS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 32, leave out "open" and insert "exposed".

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
When I moved the Second Reading of the Bill, I emphasised that it was a Bill concerned with what was publicly displayed—I seem to remember speaking about the cover, not the contents—and that it was not a Bill about censorship. If I may take the unusual step of quoting my own words on Second Reading, I said:
I should like to take the opportunity to stress that the Bill, like its predecessors, is not concerned with censorship. It makes no judgment, and I personally make no judgment, on whether the material, the public display of which would be controlled under the Bill, should be available or should be published. Equally, I emphasise that the provisions of the Bill in no way imply approval of the availability of such material".—[Official Report, 30 January 1981; Vol. 997, c. 1168.]
Despite using words in the Bill as it came before the House on Second Reading which were derived from the Bill which had been introduced by the Government in 1973, it appeared that there was doubt and ambiguity in the subsection concerned with making it clear whether the cover or the contents were dealt with by the Bill. A number of hon. Members reached the conclusion that subsection (5) was not that well worded and was not readily understandable plain English. The subsection (5) which emerged out of our deliberations in Committee was a considerable improvement on the subsection with which we entered Committee.
11.15 am
The amendment made in another place substitutes for the words "open to view" in clause 1(5)(a) the words "exposed to view". The amendment removes what could be held to be a remaining cause of ambiguity. The meaning and effect of the Bill is in no way changed, whether we have the words "open to view" or "exposed to view", but I accept that using "exposed to view" is a little better English and will make it that much clearer to some people that we are concerned not with the contents but with the cover of what is publicly displayed.
If the amendment is accepted, subsection (5)(a) will read:
there shall be disregarded any part of that matter which is not exposed to view".
Since the effect of accepting the amendment is to make our intent that much clearer and to improve the English of this part of the Bill, I commend the Lords amendment.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), for whom we all have the greatest admiration for the way in which he has brought his Bill almost to the statute book, will not take it amiss if I make the point that I doubt whether this change removes an ambiguity and that, even it it does, it can do so only the basis that the spirit of the Bill has been changed.
On the face of it, there is no difference between the words "open" and "exposed". I say that because the

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary appears to indicate that. About the word "open", it says, amongst other meanings "exposed to view, displayed". About the word "expose" it says, amongst other meanings "to lay open". It is a matter of individual preference, therefore, there being no difference, whether we leave the words as they are or we change them so that more people are happier than with the original words.
I do not express a strong view either way about whether the change on that basis would be worth resisting, but what worries me is that there is a move, fortunately not yet fully developed, for judges to say that in interpreting our statutes they must look to see what was said in Parliament when the Bill went through or, it is suggested, at the reports of Royal Commissions and the conclusions drawn therein. Fortunately, the change that that move is likely to occasion has not yet been brought about, but what would happen if, in a few years, that change was brought about and judges began to look to see what was the intention of Parliament when it substituted the word "exposed" for the word "open"?
If we agree with the Lords amendment, it appears that we shall be agreeing on this basis, and I refer to two passages in the speeches in the other place when reasons were given for substituting the word "exposed" for the word "open". The first example is the reason given by the Earl of Listowel. I do not wish to be in breach of any parliamentary rule that prevents an hon. Member quoting a speech in the other place, so perhaps I may take out the inverted commas and, as it were, use my own words in interpreting what the noble Lord said.
His view was that if the words "exposed to view" were used instead of the words "open to view", that would make it clear that the law was concerned only when some part of a book or magazine was deliberately exposed for customers to see. Lord Jenkins of Putney made the same point. He was saying, as I understand, it, that it seemed to him that the word "exposed" had a more deliberate connotation than the word "open". The word "open" suggested to him an accidental display, whereas the word "exposed" had a rather more deliberate connotation. It is no part of the purpose of the Bill to limit the offence of publicly displaying indecent material to a situation where a person deliberately and wilfully exposes to view or displays or lays open indecent material.
Clause 1(1) shows that the purpose of the Bill is to go wider. It says:
If any indecent matter is publicly displayed
—the objective rather than the subjective, the passive rather than the active—
the person making the display and any person causing or permitting the display to be made shall be guilty of an offence".
In other words, it envisages the situation where someone has made a display by taking something from the back of the shop, subject to the 18-year-old warning qualification, out to the front of the shop and leaving it about and the proprietor does nothing to stop it. He is permitting the display. He may not have been wilful. He may not have been deliberate. He may not have done a specific and deliberate act. He may just, for the time being, not have paid enough regard to the requirements, yet he would be guilty under the Bill.
If, however, it is intended that the meaning of the Bill should be constrained to require a deliberate act, the judges, looking to see what reason the noble Lords gave for the change may not consider that exposure in those


circumstances comes within the ambit of the Bill. Although this is not an offence of strict liability, there has to be knowledge. It is equally not an offence where the words "deliberately" or "wilfully" narrow it to a situation where a person deliberately and wilfully does an act and nothing more.
Far from the acceptance of the Lords amendment doing no harm and being merely an exchange of words, there is the possibility—I believe that we have to deal here at this stage with the possibilities when we can spot them—that it might do no good at all. It might restrict the meaning of the application of the Bill that is wanted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove. It does not remove an ambiguity. Although it may be better English to some people, it may not be more helpful English to judges of the future.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. and learned Friend's concern appears to be that one word, "deliberate", was used by a noble Lord in another place in connection with the amendment. If we were to have the interpretation of statutes legislation to which my hon. and learned Friend refers, one of the problems that would face courts were the proceedings of Parliament being read diligently would be the possibility that something said in one place appeared to be different from what was said in another.
If my hon. and learned Friend studies the report of the proceedings in Standing Committee C, particularly at columns 47 to 49, on 18 February, he will see that at least in this House we have made it abundantly clear that while we are not making this an offence of strict liability, we are saying that all that is required is knowledge. A display does not have to be made by the proprietor of a shop. If he sees it and allows it to continue, he will have knowledge and will be guilty of an offence.

Mr. Lawrence: I should like to accept that intervention as my hon. Friend intends it. But a court may well say that, while the House of Commons in Committee clearly wanted it to be as wide as the sponsor had intended, hon. Members must have changed their minds because when their Lordships narrowed it they accepted the narrowing. If that is a risk, it should be avoided.
There is a simple way round the problem. My objection is based on the argument that judges may take into account the sayings here. If it is made abundantly clear today by my hon. Friend and by the Minister that, in giving our approval to their Lordships' amendment, we are not giving our approval on the basis that it requires an element of deliberation and calculation that was not intended in the Bill, but are doing so merely on the basis that the words "exposed" and "open" are the same, that it changes nothing, and that we do not wish courts to consider that it does change anything—and that the Bill may never go on the statute book if we start messing around with it—my objection will not be worth pressing further than raising it in this speech.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I understand that those considering the Bill in another place believed that "open" was narrowing the Bill and that "exposing" was extending it. If something was shown that was not open, there would he no offence, while "exposed" now means the outside or the back of the offending material. It need not necessarily be open for an offence to be committed.

Mr. Lawrence: That was another element in what one of their Lordships said. The point that comes over most weightily from the noble Lords, whose opinions I have endeavoured to reconstruct, is that there is an element of deliberation. If my point evokes the response from the sponsor of the Bill and the Minister of State that I have requested, I shall not threaten the future of the Bill, which I welcome in every way, by pressing this matter to a Division.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am sorry to disagree with part of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has said. I think that those in another place were, on the whole, right to insert the words "exposed to view". The essence of the Bill is concerned with indecent matter being publicly displayed—the display and the making of the display—and therefore the public nuisance that is involved in people being forced to see indecent material on display. It follows that the material must be exposed to view in the sense that this is not entirely accidental. A position could arise where a curtain was lifted, providing obliquely the chance to see into the shop by accident. That would in a sense amount to "open to view", but it would not be "exposed to view". There must be to some degree some intention that it be on public display.
This is a narrow point. I do not see in it the dangers to which reference has been made. I am happy that the amendment should remain, if my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) is equally happy. On the whole, I gather that he is prepared to accept it, as is the Minister.

Mr. David Mellor: I view the amendment with some concern. I associate myself with the observations of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
Before turning to the detail of the matter, let me say that what we are concerned with here is fine tuning to the Bill. Once again I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on bringing to the statute book what many regard as a valuable piece of legislation. I say that notwithstanding the fact that I have, on occasions, suggested some changes to the Bill. I admit to regretting that one of the proposed Lords amendments which we are not considering today is that which was concerned with the definition of "indecent". However, one would not want to carp on an occasion such as this. I hope that the confidence expressed in the effectiveness of the central definition of "indecent" in the Bill, as is commonly understood in the law, will be effective in doing all that we wish.
I hope that it is not wrong of me to say that it is regrettable—even though we are engaged in fine tuning—that there is no spokesman of the official Opposition present today, particularly as the usual Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) has been most helpful at other stages of the Bill. I am not sure that it is in keeping with the importance of this measure that no one should be present to speak for the Opposition, particularly as this debate has already involved a matter which goes beyond what has been suggested as merely a substitution of one word for another that means substantially the same thing.

Mr. Lawrence: Will my hon. Friend observe that this does not seem to be a matter of concern to either the Liberal Party or the Social Democratic Party?

Mr. Mellor: My hon. and learned Friend is right.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to be unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill). We had no notice that this matter was to be brought before the House today. That was our difficulty earlier in the week. I consulted the sponsor of the Bill to bring to his attention the fact that the announcement had been made at a late stage. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will limit his strictures.

Mr. Mellor: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I have been an ally of the hon. Member for Halifax on a number of matters concerned with the Bill. My comments were not directed to her personally. She has been most accomplished in her grasp of these issues.
We are in difficulty with the amendment, because either it means something or it does not mean anything. If it means nothing, why should we accept it?

Mr. Sainsbury: When I proposed that the House should agree to the amendment, I mentioned that the English would be a little more elegant if we used the word "exposed" rather than "open", and that the meaning would not be changed. In those circumstances, and bearing in mind the limitations of time for Private Members' legislation and the fact that this is the last day available in this Parliament for such legislation, surely it would be foolish to quarrel when one is improving the elegance of the English and not changing the meaning.

Mr. Mellor: I accept that. One hopes that that is being done. Indeed, in public health legislation, and matters of that kind, the word "exposed" is used when "open" is the meaning. That may well be right. However, it would be sinister if the implication were to be drawn from this that somehow we were making it more difficult to prove an offence when there was a display of material if it were open to argument that the fact that there had not been any wilful exposure somehow limited the ability to obtain a conviction.
It would be helpful if the Minister could assist us on the matter of definition. I shall be minded to accept what has been said if what we are talking about is elegance of language and bringing the word "exposed", in the context of display, into line with words used in other statutes involving the display of other material. It would be most unfortunate if this were in any way to limit the Bill, which is what appeared to be in the minds of one or two of those who spoke in the other place.

Mr. John Wheeler: We have reached the final stage of the Bill in this House. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on the excellent progress that he has been able to make on this matter and on his care and diligence in assisting so many hon. Members who have taken an interest in this subject.
However, I should like to take up the theme of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) about the amendment and the use of the word "exposed" instead of "open". As a lay judge, I see no particular difficulty in the use of the word "exposed", nor do I believe that it would leave any court in doubt about the intention of the House as to the contents of the legislation.
The clause will be concerned with establishing the knowledge that the material, or the publication, whatever

it may be, was deliberately exposed. It is that knowledge on the part of the proprietor of the premises or of his servant that is the key element with which the court will be concerned when considering a charge. Therefore, I do not share my hon. and learned Friend's concern that the amendment in any way substantially changes the Bill or hinders what those of us who have supported it over a period wish to see achieved. On the contrary, the amendment and the Bill will render an enormous service to those who live in our great cities, not least in London.
A recent survey in my constituency has shown that in South Paddington alone there are no fewer than 14 premises involved in the sex industry, selling goods such as cassette films, books or other material, which for the most part they are entitled to sell, but which can give offence if exposed to the gaze of the public, who are perfectly entitled to use the streets in the central London district of South Paddington. The fact that in one very small area of central London so many of these premises exist amply justifies the intention of the Bill and the Lords' amendment. I am of the opinion that the sooner the Bill becomes law, the better for the good of the community.
Throughout the discussions on the Bill I have maintained a close liaison with the residents of central London, whom I have consulted carefully about the amendments made to the Bill and the clauses that we are considering today. They have made it clear throughout that they do not wish to see the House enact a form of censorship. They wish to see on the statute book an Act that deals with display and what may be seen by the passenger in the street. There in no question of moral judgment. Equally, there is no question of approval or disapproval of what may be held in the premises that abut the streets. I find no difficulty in accepting the proposed amendment, and I commend it to the House.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): We may not have been making great headlines today, but it is this aspect of the work of Parliament that tends to be rather neglected when attempts are made from time to time to comment on and assess the value of the work that is done in the Chamber. We have a responsibility to make our legislation as watertight and as clear and effective as possible. No doubt it all seems dull, but it is important. This short debate has served to illustrate that principle. Rather to my surprise, it has turned out to be an interesting debate. I think that it might be of some help to the House if I offer my advice on the consequence of the amendment that was made in another place.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) took the view, which I respect, that some alteration had been made to the ambit of the Bill. He envisaged a day when the courts, if called upon to construe a statute, would go through all the accounts of what took place in both Houses of Parliament, on the Floor of each House and in Committee. He drew attention to possible uncertainties that might result if that took place. My hon. and learned Friend made a good case against any departure from the normal rule.
If, in appearing in courts and in trying to assist the courts on the meaning of statutes passed by Parliament, we are to be required to construe what was said in Standing Committee C, read what was said in Committee in another place, and compare the two versions, we shall increase enormously the time that is taken to deal with the matter. I hope that the courts will stand by the well-established and


sensible rule that they merely construe the language used by Parliament in the statute and give to it its ordinary and natural meaning.

Mr. Lawrence: The issue is not whether the courts will stand by the rule, but whether Parliament stands by it. We have stopped an interpretation Bill from passing through this place which required something along the lines that I fear and my hon. and learned Friend fears.

Mr. Mayhew: That is an important and apposite point.
It may be helpful if I remind the House of the history of the matter. Concern was expressed about the meaning of the original clause 1(5) during the third sitting of Standing Committee C. That concern came to a head on Report. It was questioned whether the subsection excluded the hidden contents of a book, which was our intention. It has been our intention throughout to guard against that which is open to view. We are not seeking to make the Bill bite upon what is contained in a book or magazine, provided that the contents are not open to view. The drafting was clarified during the fourth sitting by an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). I associate myself with what has been said about his achievement in bringing the Bill to its present stage.
11.45 am
Several hon. Members expressed their reservation about the term "open to view". My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) and others expressed their concern. My hon. Friend undertook to reconsider the matter. He came to the conclusion—it was an entirely understandable one—that no further amendment was necessary.
When the Bill went to another place, a debate took place on the Earl of Listowel's amendment and it was argued that "exposed" more clearly excluded the contents of a book and that the element of deliberateness implied by the term would safeguard the shopkeeper if a customer opend a book and displayed its contents. The view which I have taken and, much more reliably, the view which those whose job it is to advise the Government on statutory drafing have taken, is that the original formula of "open to view" was perfectly all right and that it achieved the purpose of the sponsor and the purpose of all those who have been wishing the Bill well.
That does not mean that there is anything wrong in our view with the wording "exposed to view" that has been preferred by those in another place. I do not believe that it makes a rap of difference one way or another. We must bear in mind that the guts of the Bill are contained in clause 1(1), which sets up the offence of causing an indecent display in these words:
If any indecent matter is publicly displayed the person making the display and any person causing or permitting the display to be made shall be guilty of an offence.
In subsection (5) we are merely inserting a saver. We are saying, in effect, that when consideration is given to the word "matter" there should be disregarded any part of the matter which is not open to view or exposed to view. We are not qualifying the nature of the offence that is defined in subsection (1). It is a well-established principle that one cannot be guilty of an offence which is described as causing or permitting something to take place unless the

factual essence of the offence is known to the person who is being prosecuted. We are inserting a definition of "matter".
Whichever of the alternatives we use, either "open to view" or "exposed to view", the essence of the issue is that we are describing a state of affairs which is constituted by the visibility or non-visibility of the written or pictorial material with which we are concerned. One is having no effect upon the criminal contempt that has to be proved before the offence that is prescribed in clause 1 can be committed if one describes the pictorial or written material as being "open to view" or "exposed to view". It does not matter either way.

Mr. James A. Dunn: Perhaps I might put to the Minister the question that I asked the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). If the House accepts the amendment, is it possible that a book can be exposed to view—not open to view—and thereby an offence is committed? If we restrict ourselves to the word "open", the book could be exposed, but would also have to be open.

Mr. Mayhew: I do not believe that there is any widening or narrowing in the ambit of the Bill. That which the Bill would bite upon if we were to use and stick to the expression "open to view" will still be able to be bitten upon by the Bill if we adopt the wording that has been employed in another place.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. and learned Friend has said that, in his view, the wording does not matter. Would he be good enough to go further and say that not only is that his view but that it is not his intention that the word "exposed" should change the meaning of the word "open"?

Mr. Mayhew: My intention does not matter, because I am not a sponsor of the Bill. I should not be happy if the amendment introduced any significant change in the ambit of the Bill, because, as I said in Committee, I thought that the ambit of the Bill was correct. Therefore, I do not believe that the fears that have been expressed are well founded. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall that concern was expressed about whether the term "open to view" might be interpreted in the sense of "available for viewing" and thus held to include the hidden contents of a book or magazine. Similar fears were expressed in another place, which led to the present amendment.
I do not believe that the fears are well founded, but I am satisfied that the term "exposed to view" will do the job as well as the original wording or the wording introduced during the fourth sitting of the Committee. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2

POWERS OF ARREST, SEIZURE AND ENTRY

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 14, leave out from "Act" to end of line 15.

Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment removes from the Bill the power to seize an article in respect of an attempt to commit an offence. On Report we rightly removed the powers of


arrest and of entry in connection with attempts to commit an offence. We did so on the grounds, which I believe are fully justified, that this is not the sort of offence in which one could sensibly talk about the attempt to commit it. An offence of public display is either committed or not committed. If the material is not publicly displayed, but someone has something in his pocket which, if publicly displayed, would be an indecent display, one cannot reasonably say that that constitutes an attempt to commit an offence.
The House was right to pass the amendments which took out of the Bill the powers of arrest and entry in connection with attempts. The powers were there in the first place because the clauses which introduced them were largely standard clauses, used in a large number of Bills, to provide the authorities with reasonable powers to control the offence with which they were concerned—the powers of arrest, seizure and entry. By using standard clauses, another offence could be an attempt which would require action. However, I do not believe that there is any connection with the offence of making a public indecent display.
Having taken out the powers in respect of arrest and entry, it is an anomaly to leave in the power of seizure in connection with an attempt. That anomaly was correctly identified in another place. It introduced this amendment to take out the power of seizure. I believe that the House would be right to accept the amendment and to bring the three powers of seizure, entry and arrest, in line.

Mr. Lawrence: It appears that if the Criminal Attempts Bill, which is in its late stages in this place, goes on to the the statute book, as we hope that it will, there is no point in having the words deleted by the Lords in this part of this Bill. Clause 2 of the Criminal Attempts Bill states that in provisions conferring a power of arrest or search the law shall be the same with attempts as it is with the offence attempted. Therefore, it seems to be no more than the merest common sense to accept this amendment.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: I fully support the amendment because, as a lawyer, I cannot contemplate a more hazardous or more foolhardy exercise than a constable finding a set of circumstances whereby he has to decide whether someone is about to attempt an indecent display. The other more sinister aspect is that it could give an unscrupulous police officer wide powers which he could abuse.
You may not allow me to make these comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall see what happens. Everyone in the House will accept the spirit and intent of the Bill. Everyone has the gut feeling that what it is setting out to do is right and proper. I am sad to say, however, that even if it succeeds, it will succeed for the wrong reasons because it sets up a myriad of traps for the unwary and has more tricky fences than the Grand National.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that he is straying far from the amendment. We must stick to the amendment.

Mr. Williams: I shall end my short intervention by saying that the traps are there and that there are further traps when it comes to who will prosecute. I hope that the

Bill will have the power only for the chief constables, the local authorities and the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute. Otherwise individuals will set themselves up as guardians of morality. If a case comes before a court and the court finds that the method is not indecent, but the judge himself thinks that it is, there is the real possibility that the judge will award costs out of public funds, and the taxpayer will suffer.

Mr. John Ryman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The whole House is anxious that the Bill should reach the statute book as soon as possible. May I respectfully submit that the speech now being made by the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) interesting though it is, is totally irrelevant to the amendment, as you have said? Will you rule accordingly?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was listening carefully and I had hoped that letting the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) continue would be a shorter exerise than correcting him again. However, the hon. Member must confine himself to the amendment.

Mr. Williams: I shall do so. This Bill is equally irrelevant to the matters which it seeks to put right.

Mr. Mayhew: It may be of help if I say that, in the view of the Government, no difficulties will arise from the deletion of the reference to an attempt in clause 2(2) of the Bill.
It was argued in another place that an attempt to commit an offence under clause 1 was difficult to envisage, and that if a constable were to arrive at the crucial moment when someone was attempting to erect a display he could wait until the offence had been completed before seizing the articles. It is right to say that, in practical terms, the amendment will probably have no effect, as clause 2 of the Criminal Attempts Bill provides a number of powers, including that of seizure, applying to an attempt to commit an offence as they apply to a full offence. Therefore, this amendment can happily and confidently be accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4

PENALTIES

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 4, line 10, leave out
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 60 days or";

12 noon

Mr. Sainsbury: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 6.

Mr. Sainsbury: On Report there was an interesting and important debate on the penalties that should be available on summary conviction before a magistrates' court. The House agreed that although it was important to retain the power of imprisonment for the most serious offences—one obviously has in mind the repeating offender—it was logical to expect that such offences would go for trial, or at least for sentence, to a Crown court.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: Has my hon. Friend considered the possibility of a continuing offence provision, such as a £500 a day fine? Would that not have fitted the Bill better?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend may have studied our Committee proceedings but have overlooked the fact that that was carefully considered. However the Committee unanimously agreed that that would not be the most helpful way of tackling the problem. However, if someone keeps an indecent display on display, he could be charged separately and continuously for keeping that indecent display on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The charges could be made collectively and the fines could be levied for each of the offences.
It was felt sensible to delete the power of imprisonment—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) agreed with this—when offences are brought before magistrates' courts for summary conviction. On Report, we deleted the power of imprisonment for England and Wales. I regret that not only am I not a lawyer but that my ignorance of the niceties and details of the law increases when we go north of the border to Scotland. We failed to remove the same powers in respect of sheriff and district courts in Scotland.
The amendments, which I commend to the House, bring the penalties in Scotland into line with those in England and Wales. Therefore, I hope that the House will see fit to accept them. If they are accepted the Bill's passage will have been completed. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), the Minister for Social Security, in his place. He played a considerable part, on another occasion, in trying to get such legislation on the statute book. On no fewer than eight occasions in the past nine years the House has approved—without opposition or Division—a Bill's introduction or its Second or Third Reading when it has had the objective of making a public display a criminal offence.
The House and the public have waited a long time to see this legislation on the statute book. I hope that it will shortly be placed there firmly. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and his staff for the considerable assistance that they have provided. I also thank those hon. Members, in all parts of the House, who have spoken and worked in support of the legislation. I hope that I will not be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I include you in my thanks as you were a sponsor of the Bill before you assumed your present distinguished responsibilities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot possibly rule that out of order.

Mr. Sainsbury: This is a limited, but valuable, measure which gives better protection to the public. We are all entitled to better protection from the offence caused by indecent displays.

Mr. James A. Dunn: I join the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) in his appreciation of the work done by his predecessors. I share his acceptance of the amendments and support what he said about them. If the amendments were not carried there would be a contradiction in the legislation. Contradictions are not helpful and they would bring the Bill into disrepute. We do not wish that to happen.
I not only support the amendments but express my appreciation to the Bill's sponsor for the care that he has exercised in all its stages. He has given time to every representation made to him and has shown great courtesy to all those who have helped or could have been asked to help in these proceedings. He will have achieved a valuable step. If the Bill is enacted in the immediate future

it might have some impact on some of the discontent, stimulation and activities that have appalled us recently. The appalling confrontations that we have witnessed might be reduced because people would not be stimulated by the type of activities that the Bill seeks to cover. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hove on the Bill.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister referred to the value of debates such as this. Our debate on Report about penalties was one of the most important. Although we were debating one Bill, an issue of principle arose about the management of prisons and sentencing policy. Those who raised the subject did so well, and they had a considerable impact on the Bill's sponsors.
Within the purviews of the Bill and the problem of penalties and deterrents lies a wider issue that the House has rightly given considerable attention to. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) was equally right to respond to that feeling and to ensure that although the Bill contains substantial penalties and deterrents, we have got the balance right. The noble Lords are to be thanked for the amendments that they have proposed. They have demonstrated, yet again, the value of a second Chamber. I refer in particular to the devoted work of Lord Nugent. Throughout the Bill's passage he has been a tower of strength and encouragement. I vividly remember giving evidence with him and with Lord Halsbury to the Williams committee. I raised the issue of indecent displays and was strongly supported by those two Lords. It is appropriate that, as we come to the end of the Bill's proceedings, we should have a brief debate about penalties and deterrents.
So many nice things have been said about my hon. Friend the Member for Hove that I am almost tempted to break the mould and denounce him. But, as a co-sponsor of the Bill, I would not dream of doing that and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a former co-sponsor, would not permit me to do so.
Everything that has been said about my hon. Friend is accurate. It is wonderful that a Back Bencher can introduce and carry through a piece of legislation which is wholly beneficial and greatly to the value of the public. Perhaps such a law should have been passed some time ago, but, as a result of my hon. Friend's perseverance and hard work and the sympathy, understanding and co-operation shown by the hon. Members for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) and the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin), the measure has eventually reached the statute book.
The Bill is a modest but important step forward. it represents a turning point in the attitude of Parliament and the public to something which has developed to the point where it has become intolerable to decent people. After this week, of all weeks, when we have seen so much unhappiness and difficulty in our cities, it may remind us that some of the glib views of the so-called permissive society, which was raised to be called the civilised society, have had results that we can all see.
The Bill represents an attempt by Parliament to make felt its view that matters have gone too far in this area and that we wish not to impose censorship, but to ensure that display and exploitation shall no longer continue.

Mr. Rees-Davies: It is noticeable not only that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are a former sponsor of the Bill, but that sitting on the Government Front Bench waiting to deal


with the next Bill to come before the House is my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who is now the Minister for Social Security and who piloted through a similar measure until it fell with a general election. My hon. Friend gave immensely careful consideration to that Bill.
Indecent displays and obscene publications Bills on similar lines have been introduced on a number of occasions. Just over nine years ago the Society of Conservative Lawyers considered the matter and concluded that such legislation should be introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I served on that Committee. For almost a decade, many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been trying, with the acceptance of the House, to get such a measure on the statute book.
Two Bills fell because of general elections. One was mine and the other was promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey. With admirable diplomacy and expertise, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) has succeeded, but the experience of the past nine years shows how desperately difficult it is for private Members' Bills to get through the House. I hope that next year we shall make it a little easier and simplify the procedures.
I shall not take long, because I am interested in seeing that the next Bill to come before the House also gets on to the statute book.

Sir Marcus Kimball: And the next one.

Mr. Lawrence: And the one after that.

Mr. Rees-Davies: There is still much to be done. I support the Lords amendment. We should have noticed the need for it earlier. I believe that there should be provision for only a fine in the magistrates' court. It can be £1,000, though that could be negligible in certain circumstances. Therefore, I make a plea that the Home Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions should bear in mind that in the case of serious infringements, usually on a second occasion, traders who deliberately flout the law and expose filthy literature, cassettes and the rest for sale should be indicted, because on indictment there is provision for imprisonment and a substantial fine.
The best way to deal with the matter is to hit the pornographers hard in the pocket. That view was expressed clearly in Committee and elsewhere. I support the Bill and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove on having the good sense to choose this measure and on having piloted it through Parliament.

Mr. Lawrence: As I wish to keep within the rules of procedure, I begin by saying that I support the welcome of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) to the Lords amendments. There are enough differences between the Scots and the other British without our compounding them, when we want to continue to forge this great nation into one. To have a difference between the law of Scotland and the law of England and Wales, as would have been occasioned if we had provided for imprisonment here and not there, would have been unacceptable.
As everyone is welcoming the Bill, I take the liberty of offering yet one more word of welcome. As we are talking ad hominem as well as ad rem, I shall say that it was clever enough of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove to have won the ballot. It was courageous enough of him to have chosen this subject, which had proved to be a minefield for so many worthy predecessors. But the way in which he has, with the skill of a Pelé, weaved between the obstacles, feinted, sold dummies, cajoled, persuaded and charmed—especially those of us who are lawyers, who can always see an objection to anything—to get the Bill on to the statute book, is greatly admired by all of us. That applies especially to myself as a sponsor of the Bill because I was born and bred in the connurbation which my hon. Friend so graciously and successfully represents. His constituents must be proud of him.
The Bill is gradualistic in the extreme. It is a blow struck for the doctrine of gradualism, which is not a doctrine that I normally support or adhere to. There are other parts of the law where it is in my view little short of disastrous for us to be so gradualistic. I hope that we shall not say in this place, as I had a feeling that the Government were saying when we debated obscenity last time, that this is a substantial step forward and that we need not be too concerned about taking the other wider steps. For some reason we are terrified to legislate on obscenity, to try to define it and to deal more rigorously with some of the extraordinary perversions of decency that appear on our streets, in the shops, the cinemas and the theatres. I do not wish it to be thought that those of us who support the Bill for the small step towards decency that it takes would want it to be the last step taken, in this or any other Parliament, to sweep the cancer of pornography and distaste out of the public purview.
I welcome the Bill, I congratulate my hon. Friend and encourage the House to take further steps in this direction.

Mr. Mayhew: As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) said, the effect of the amendments is to correct an anomaly concerning the maximum penalties on summary conviction in Scotland. The anomaly arose on Report when the amendments tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) were accepted. Those amendments removed the power of imprisonment on summary conviction, but only in England and Wales. To rectify the distinction which thereupon resulted, the amendments were tabled on behalf of the Government in Committee in another place. By removing the power of imprisonment on summary conviction in Scotland the amendments ensure that the Bill will apply evenhandedly throughout Great Britain. I warmly support my hon. Friend in advising the House to accept them.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove for what he said about the help which my officials have been able to give him in the drafting and conduct of the Bill. His remarks will be gratefully received by my officials.
We have been glad to offer assistance because there is little time for Government Departments to introduce many measures that they would like. There is great pressure upon legislative time. Therefore, when a Private Member has the good luck and the discrimination demonstrated by my hon. Friend to choose something as important as this, we are anxious to give what help we can.
I felt increasingly inadequate during the final speeches. I seem to be the only Member who has never tried to get such a Bill through. I suppose that it was therefore all the more fitting that I should be obliged throughout the Committee stage to give what help I could. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
It is encouraging that the Bill was supported at every stage, virtually unanimously. On Second Reading, no speech was made against it and no vote was cast against it. Throughout the Standing Committee the contributions from all quarters were unfailingly constructive. That demonstrates in itself the recognition in the House of the great body of opinion from our constituents who have wanted the tide to turn. That is the achievement with which my hon. Friend the Member for Hove will always be associated. He has persuaded Parliament to turn the tide.
I believe that our constituents will be saying "Thank Heavens Parliament has listened and done something at last". That is a great achievement. It is open to few of us to do something as significant as that off our own bat. I offer my warmest congratulations and thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 6 agreed to.

Disabled Persons (No. 2) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

NEEDS OF THE DISABLED ON HIGHWAYS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(4) In executing in a street any such works as are mentioned in subsection (1) above, any such authority or person as is mentioned in that subsection shall have regard to the need of blind persons to have any openings, whether temporary or permanent, in the street, properly protected.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I feel like a marathon runner who has run the 26 miles before reaching the starting gun and has 300 yards to run after the race has started. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me the same latitude as you allowed in debates on amendments to the previous Bill.
I should like to thank the House of Lords for the work that it has done on the Bill. We have been in a rather difficult position, in that the sum total of the time that the Bill has had on the Floor of the Commons has been only three or four minutes. To say the least, that restricts the chance of explaining and exploring the contents of any Bill. We have had to rely to a large extent on the other place to make some of the amendments which, inevitably, are necessary to any Private Member's Bill, or indeed, to any legislation. I do not always, in constitutional theory. hold the concept of the other Chamber, in the way that it is formulated, at the highest, but I cannot but pay the highest tribute to it for the work that it has done on the Bill But for the facility afforded in the other place, we should have been in great difficulty.
I particularly thank Lady Masham, who took on the responsibility of piloting the Bill through the other place. ably helped by what is affectionately known as the Wheelchair Brigade, which includes Viscount Ingleby and Lady D'Arcy de Knayth. Considerable help was also given by Lord Winstanley.
It was possible to improve the Bill, which was fairly weak when it had its Second Reading here. One had hoped that it would have been possible to go much further, but some of its defects have been corrected during its passage through the Lords, and to strengthen it.
I thank the Department and the Government in general for the assistance that I have had to improve the drafting and other aspects. Many of the amendments made in the other place came from the Government. After our original discussions identified the areas in which we were trying to move, the Government were willing to do everything possible, within their financial and other practical limitations. I thank the Minister for Social Security and his civil servants, who have given considerable time and effort to assist us in making progress.
The amendment is purely technical, removing the word "hole". We said in the original Bill that there was a need, for the benefit of blind persons, to protect any works on pavements and roads. We said that
any holes or openings, whether temporary or permanent, in a street
had to be properly protected.
Apparently, "hole" can be construed as meaning a pothole, in addition to a vertical opening that is constructed in a pavement or highway. It is considered unreasonable to expect a local authority to fence round every pothole that appears by chance in a pavement. The point of the clause is to ensure that works specifically undertaken on pavements are properly protected, so that blind people do not walk into vertical openings in the ground and hurt themselves.
I am assured that the word "openings" means not only openings on to a pavement in the horizontal plane, but vertical openings going downwards, and that therefore the term is more appropriate than "holes or openings".

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: The sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has done the House a great service. He is right to say that Lady Masham and the Wheelchair Brigade have altered the Bill out of all recognition, making immeasurable improvements to it. They would not have achieved that without my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department playing a very effective part.
I know that I do not look like it now, but I was a member of the Wheelchair Brigade about two years ago. When I was trying to get into the House, I was knocked down and my left leg was broken in four places. That was immensely advantageous to my constituents. With the help of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, of whose executive I happen to be a member, I had one of the very best wheelchairs. I promptly went down to Margate with it, and soon discovered that there was a horrible lack of ramps. I could not get on to the pavements and I could not get into the places of entertainment and various other places.
Therefore, I finally deliberately got stuck. I went head over tail over the side of one of the ramps, whereupon two constituents rushed to my rescue and lifted me up. It was a perfect set-up for television. It was televised, and as a result Thanet has been one of the forerunners in improving facilities for getting on and off ramps. It is vital for the blind that any undesirable openings are properly protected. That is the purpose of the amendment. The Bill had to be changed, because we could not apply a liability to every local authority for every pothole that might arise.
12.30 pm
Clause 1(1) states:
In executing works in a street which may impede the mobility of disabled persons or blind persons highway authorities, local authorities and any other person exercising a statutory power to execute works on a highway shall have regard to the needs of such persons.
That is the major issue of the Bill. It is only recently that highway authorities and local authorities have begun to carry out the responsibilities that were originally imposed under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. There is now a recognition of those responsibilities. Today provides an opportunity for the Minister to ensure that that is known throughout the country. It is primarily for that reason that I am speaking now.
I hope that the media—which have covered the proceedings on the Indecent Displays (Control) Bill and will make it plain that we shall stop that sort of porn—will also say that the disabled of Britain, whether blind, disabled through broken legs, paraplegics or with war-time injuries, have had the close consideration of another place,

which has done excellent work, of the Minister and of the sponsor of the Bill. In passing the Bill it is important to ensure that the public recognise that the House is carrying out its duties effectively. The Bill is a first-class example of a Private Member's Bill.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I join my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) in congratulating the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). He has performed a great service to the disabled, for which the House is grateful.
I wish to raise a small point, which is not directly concerned with the amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister may be able to respond to it when he replies to the debate. In my constituency recently—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I have been allowing a little latitude because of the nature of the proceedings. We should now press ahead and keep in order. I warn that I shall keep the House in much closer order.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I hope that my point, which refers to wheelchairs for the disabled, will be in order. There is a young, severely disabled child in my constituency. There is a chair for the young disabled, called the orthokinetic chair, which costs £500. That is in excess of the amount that the Department can spend on a chair. Thanks to the intervention of a charity, I raised the money for the child's family to purchase the chair. I was a little surprised that it was not possible to obtain from the Department the slice of grant that would normally have been available for a chair supplied by the Department. I do not expect my hon. Friend to give a full answer now, but I hope that he will take that point on board.

Mr. John Major: I am well aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of your stricture a moment ago, and I shall be both brief and I hope, pertinent, because I am most anxious that the Bill should reach the statute book. I wish to enter a brief biographical note.
As a small boy, I frequently acted as the eyes of my father, who lost his sight when he was elderly. I am therefore well aware of the difficulties that are faced by blind people as they try to negotiate the hazards that they find on the streets. The amendment proposed is one which, had it been part of statute law 30 years go, would have greatly benefited people who were blind. First, it would have kept them out of danger, certainly from holes in the roads. Secondly—a subsidiary matter that is not immediately apparent—there is the reluctance of people like my father to make the effort to go into the streets because of the hazards that might face them.
The enactment of the Bill, and particularly of clause 1(4), will remove that fear from many blind people. In future when they go on the streets, either with or without a guide dog, they will have more confidence than previously. I therefore fully support the amendment. I do so with great brevity, so that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), who introduced the Bill, may have the well-earned satisfaction of seeing it reach the statute book.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I crave the indulgence which your predecessor in the Chair a moment ago gave to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) to go a little wide.
I start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his great success in piloting a Private Member's Bill through


the House to this stage, now with the certainty of the satisfaction of seeing it on the statute book in his name. In debate on the Indecent Displays (Control) Bill, we heard that it has taken 10 years of attempts by various hon. Members, including myself, for the measure to reach the statute book. I envy the hon. Gentleman his success in attaining his objective, whereas a general election prevented me from attaining my objective in a Private Member's Bill.
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to thank me and my Department for the help that we have tried to give him throughout the various stages of his Bill. I am grateful to him for doing that, because that was not the impression that was created outside the House by some people during the earlier stages of the Bill. The suggestion was that the Government were seeking to frustrate and block it, or to draw its teeth—and gums, too. That suggestion received widespread circulation, particularly in one Sunday newspaper. I am glad of this opportunity to refute that. The Government have been behind the principles of the Bill from the very outset.
The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, I am sure, that when he first presented a similar measure—it was not this Bill, but another one—there were objections from local authorities. His place in the list was such that the Bill was at risk of not seeing the light of day. It was effectively being blocked Friday after Friday. It was at that stage that we were able to help him, because we felt that the principles of the Bill were desirable, and we suggested ways in which he could achieve his objective. The Government made time available for him, so that the Bill could rush rapidly through the House and the detailed matters could be dealt with at greater leisure in another place, where that has happened.
I want to place it on record that the Government have not been forced to accept any amendments. All the amendments have either been initiated by the Government or have been accepted willingly.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) mentioned the media and the desirability of their giving as widespread publicity as possible to this excellent measure. I hope that they do that and that they get it right and make acknowledgements where they are properly due.
As has been said, this is a technical amendment to change the wording of subsection (4) to make it clear that the duty to protect openings in a road applies when street works are being carried out. The deletion of the reference to "holes" reflects the fact that, notwithstanding the statutory responsibilities of highway authorities for the repair and maintenance of highways and footways, which the Bill does not affect, they cannot reasonably be expected to protect minor holes and potholes, as distinct from deliberate openings.
The duty here extends not only to local authorities but to statutory undertakers—gas, electricity and water companies—which create excavations in roadways or footpaths that can be a hazard to a blind person. They will now be obliged to take suitable precautions to ensure that blind people are not at risk when they carry out this kind of operation in the highway.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. GarelJones) asked about the contribution of a sum of money towards the cost of a wheelchair which could not be supplied by the National Health Service. I am aware of this problem. Representations have been made from time to

time. Unfortunately, at this stage we cannot readily accede to a request that might create a substantial increase in public expenditure. There are a great number of people who are prepared and able to go to the private sector for the provision of wheelchairs.
If we were suddenly to say that everyone who wanted to buy a wheelchair privately could have £60 or £100, for many who did not need the money and who could happily go ahead without it the temptation would be there to take the grant. Therefore, an open-ended commitment would be entered into which could have severe repercussions on Our budget. Although we have looked at the matter with great sympathy, this is not the moment at which to press me on a matter of this kind.
Having said that, I invite the House to accept the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2

WRONGFUL PARKING OF VEHICLES IN SPACES RESERVED for DISABLED PERSONS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
(2) The following paragraph shall be inserted in subsection (1) of section 50 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970, after the definition of "statutory undertakers"—
street", for the purposes of section 27A of this Act, means a road or footpath;

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This again is a technical amendment and has regard to the use of the word "street". In our discussion on the previous amendment we interpreted the wording in the Bill in a way that resulted in the term "street" including a pavement, walkway and things adjacent to streets, which is the meaning that the term has in Wales and England. But apparently there is a need for the term "street" to be defined anew in Scotland, because it does not have such a wide generic interpretation. Therefore the amendment is needed to make sure that the term "street" includes footpaths, and pavements in addition to the roadway itself.
The use of the word "street" in clause 1 is clearly intended to cover pavements. Most of the obstructions to which reference was made in the previous debate were obstructions to pavements affecting blind people and disabled people. We wish not only to give protection against openings in pavements but also to ensure that the needs of blind and disabled people are taken into account in such matters as the location of street furniture, seats and lamp posts.
We wish the Bill to apply to pavements and roads and also to the interface between pavements and roads. There is, for instance, the question of ramping. I recognise that there can be a diversity of interests. A kerb is often used by a blind person with a stick to identify his location. A two-way argument therefore arises over whether to ramp. It is clearly desirable that there should be adequate ramping to enable people in wheelchairs to move from the road to the pavement without too much difficulty, not least at the interface with a pedestrian crossing, which was an issue discussed at some length in the other place.
This is a technical amendment to extend the interpretation of the word "street" so far as Scotland is concerned.

Mr. Rossi: I cannot improve on the explanation that the hon. Gentleman has given for the amendment. It is true that, although Scotland knows all about roads and footpaths, it does not apparently know about streets. Its legislation has to be amended accordingly so that a street may be properly defined. I recommend the amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 11, after "£50"; insert—
(bb) the following section shall be inserted after section 86:—
86A.—(1) A person who is guilty of an offence in relation to a motor vehicle under a provision of this Act other than this section ("the first offence") is also guilty of an offence under this section if the conditions specified in subsection (2) below are satisfied.
(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) above are that at the time of the commission of the first offence—

(a) a disabled person's badge was displayed on the motor vehicle;
(b) he was using the motor vehicle in circumstances where a disabled person's concession would be available to a disabled person's vehicle; and
(c) the vehicle was not being used either by the person to whom the badge was issued or under section 21(4) (Institutional use) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(4) In this section—
disabled person's badge" means a badge of a form prescribed under section 21(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and
disabled person's concession" means—

(a) an exemption from an order under this Act given by reference to disabled persons' vehicles; or
(b) a provision made in any order under this Act for the use of a parking place by disabled persons' vehicles."."

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords said amendment.
We come now to an amendment of considerable substance. I welcome it greatly. It relates to the wrongful use of the orange badge. It touches upon a matter of considerable public debate.
The orange badge scheme, introduced over the last decade, has proved a considerable benefit to disabled people. In my area, there is a fairly high degree of disablement arising not only from accidents but also from industrial disease such as pneumoconiosis. The orange badge has given disabled people a new flexibility in mobility that has been highly welcome.
Unfortunately, the facility afforded by the orange badge is so clearly advantageous that one or two people, or perhaps more, have abused the scheme in a totally antisocial manner. These able-bodied people have taken advantage of the orange badge belonging perhaps to a member of their own family or a badge that they are entitled to use when driving someone else around but not entitled to use themselves to gain advantage in terms of parking.
This practice causes considerable difficulty for the authorities trying to implement the orange badge scheme, those trying to control traffic and those issuing the orange badges themselves. There has been a backlash from police and traffic wardens over the misuse of the orange badge. Able-bodied people have been parking in places where they were not allowed to park. Because of this pressure, social service departments have begun to think twice before issuing badges. Sometimes, those entitled to an orange badge have not been issued with a badge because of the pressure on social service departments not to issue too many as a result of the parking problems that have arisen.
The amendment creates a new offence, and is necessary and highly desirable. There will be a fine of £200 for someone who misuses an orange badge. If there is coverage of the debate and publicity for the Bill, I hope that the message will get home that the fine liable to be charged on someone who misuses an orange badge is substantially higher than the fine he will face for parking in the wrong place, so that if he is disposed not to wait for a slot in which to park in a legitimate parking space, at least he does not do the anti-social thing of bringing the badge scheme into disrepute by using a badge to which he is not entitled. This new offence puts pressure on such people not to abuse the scheme.
I hope that this will lead to a position in which orange badges are used only in genuine cases. As a result, life will be much easier for those who are entitled to use the badges and for the social service departments, which are responsible for issuing them, and the police and the traffic wardens who have to live with the consequences of the scheme.
The amendment has been pressed by many outside bodies. We hoped that it would find an opportunity in the Bill to make progress. I am delighted that it has been possible to bring the amendment forward now. I hope that it will give a positive service to all who have to deal with the mobility of the disabled and that it will be of tremendous benefit to everyone.

Mr. Rossi: This was a Government amendment, introduced in the other place. I follow the hon. Gentleman in referring to the problems that have been experienced in regard to the orange badge scheme. As the House knows, the scheme was introduced to allow people who had a severe physical handicap, which meant that their mobility was extremely restricted, to park motor cars as near to their destinations as possible. Therefore, local authorities were empowered to issue orange badges which could be displayed on the motor vehicle being used by a disabled person or containing a disabled passenger.
The scheme allows a car with such a badge to be parked for up to two hours on yellow lines or to be parked in a parking meter bay without charge, or to be parked without limit of time in a place where there is a time limit on the parking that is allowed. This is of considerable use to disabled people wishing, for example, to shop and to go about their everyday lives overcoming the disabilities with which we more fortunate members of society do not have to contend.
Unfortunately, some people have tended severely to abuse the system. People who are not disabled have stuck orange badges on their cars, in the same way as the use of "CD" badges was at one time considerably abused in central London. The effect of that has been to bring the


system into disrepute. There has been a reluctance on the part of local authorities to grant orange badges, and even, in some cases, to enter into the scheme.
Therefore. the amendment is intended to create a new separate offence in law. At present, someone abusing an orange badge—in other words, sticking it on his car when he is not entitled to do so, and parking on a yellow line—is committing only an ordinary parking offence and is subject to the ordinary fixed fine. Under this amendment and the new legislation, a new statutory offence will be enacted, under which a penalty of up to £200 can be imposed, and that is in addition to the parking offence which will still be committed by the offender in question.
The matter does not end there. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport intends to introduce further regulations in order to reduce the present abuse and to win back respect for the scheme. Matters that will be covered by the new regulations will include the circumstances in which the badge can be issued. Guidance will be given to local authorities. There will be a far closer definition of the categories who will be entitled to display an orange badge on their motor cars.
Britain is a member of the European Community and I hope that in time it will be possible to seek harmonisation of these regulations once they are enacted so that a disabled driver may travel in Europe and know that the symbol will be recognised by uniform enforcement throughout the Community. That is looking slightly into the future but I can tell the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that we are beginning to consider ways and means in which even that long-term objective may ultimately be achieved. I commend the amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 3, line 18, at end insert—
(2) Subsection (1) above shall not have effect in relation to offences committed before the commencement of this section.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is short and simple. Its purpose is to avoid retrospection. That is something that usually commends itself to the House when any new category of offence is being introduced. I hope that the amendment will commend itself universally to the House.

Mr. Rossi: This is another technical amendment that ensures, for obvious reasons, that the separate offence of illegal parking in a disabled person's parking space cannot be allowed to take effect retrospectively.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

PLANNING (ENGLAND AND WALES)—ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED TO BUILDINGS ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 5 in page 3, line 19, leave out "section" and insert "sections".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 12.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I say at the outset that I have certain reservations about some of the implications of the amendments. The most

pertinent of the group of amendments that is before us is No. 12, which brings into the Bill a separate reference to the design note No. 18, which deals with access far the physically disabled to educational buildings. Other buildings were covered in the original measure by the British Standard code of practice 5810: 1979.
I have certain reservations because I feel that the design note has many commendable features. It cannot be considered as an alternative to BS 5810: 1979 either in status or as it stands in content. The BS code of practice sets out the basic requirements that are applicable to all buildings that the disabled may use as members of the general public as visitors or for the purpose of employment. Although the prime users of educational buildings are those using them for education, there are visitors and there are disabled people working in them. Specifically included within the scope of the design note are educational, cultural and scientific buildings.
The code of practice does not intend to give all the design guidance required for every type of building. Other guidance exists both in general form and for particular types of building—for example, guidance provided for disabled visitors by the English Tourist Board and the Welsh Tourist Board.
1 pm
Design note 18, which concerns access for the physically handicapped to educational buildings, should be seen as supplementary information for those designing or adapting schools. BS 5810 was prepared following a lengthy consultative process involving all interested organisations, including those representing disabled people, building designers, building owners and Government Departments. BS 5810 was expressly designed so that its basic requirements could be incorporated into regulation and made enforceable. Compared to that, design note 18 was prepared by the Department of Education and Science with comparatively little input from external organisations. It is a document produced by a Government Department rather than by an established independent standards organisation outside the realms of Government.
It is recognised in the introduction that design note 18 is particularly directed towards schools, although it is intended to cover—and is used in the Bill to cover— all educational buildings. However, there must be doubts as to the relevance of any of its recommendations beyond those within the range of BS 5810 in respect of non-school buildings. For example, its sensible recommendation on parking would be eminently acceptable for most primary and junior schools, but would be totally inadequate for colleges or universities. It appears that that has been overlooked in the way in which the design note is meant to totally replace BS 5810.
Design note 18 recognises that consideration should be given to the needs of disabled non-pupils who may need to use the buildings, whether as visitors or staff. However, there are a number of omissions. While it may be current policy that seriously disabled teachers are not employed in primary schools, it does not excuse the omission of any reference to disabled staff in that sector.
In its foreword BS 5810 recognises that for certain publicly funded buildings, other more stringent criteria should be followed. That seems to be the justification for using design note 18 rather than BS 5810. However, not all educational buildings come within the provision of the


DES. For example, there are private institutions. A person setting up a private esablishment for adult students, such as a language school or a domestic science college, could argue that design note 18 was irrelevant, but would be more likely to take note of BS 5810. It has also been noted that as it stands the requirements of design note 18 are, in certain important respects, less stringent than those of BS 5810.
I shall make particular reference to the latter sections of BS 5810. Provisions were mentioned in the debate on disablement last week—the introduction of induction loops for the hard of hearing. That sort of facility is not included in the design note. That could lead to problems for some of the disabled people who would be covered by BS 5810 but not by the design note.
Design note 18 as its current title implies, is solely concerned with people with locomotor handicaps, and not even all of those. That is in the context of those who are deaf and who have other handicaps covered by BS 5810. It is interesting to note that in Scotland, BS 5810 will cover educational buildings. Despite my having serious reservations about putting only the design note before the House and not, as I would have preferred, having the design note to supplement BS 5810, so that we would have the benefit of both, I am willing to recommend acceptance of the Lords Amendment to the House because of the statement by Baroness Young on 16 June, that design note 18 is to be revised. I hope that revised version design note 18 takes in all the points which are pertinent and relevant to educational buildings of all sorts and which at present exist in BS 5810.
I should have thought that the sensible way would be to have both BS 5810 and design note 18. I shall be interested to know what assurances the Minister can give on the revision of the design note in a way which meets the points which I have outlined in introducing the amendment.

Mr. Rossi: As the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said, this group of amendments seeks to substitute design note 18, "Access for the Physically Disabled to Educational Buildings" for BS 5810 in relation to educational establishments. Design note 18 is directly relevant to the access needs of physically disabled students. It takes account, for example, of the different ages and the different statures of students, compared with adults, in different types of educational buildings and of the different circulation patterns that exist in schools and colleges.
It is interesting to note that the BSI code of practice acknowledges that in certain instances standards recommended in design note 18 are more stringent than those in the code. More important, the code recommends that for maintained educational establishments, advice about access that needs to be considered in parallel with emergency escapes should be sought from the Department of Education and Science. The BSI is telling people to go back to the Department for advice on matters relating to educational establishments. Design note 18 has that purpose. The BSI document refers people back to design note 18 for such advice.
I accept that people have reservations and are apprehensive about design note 18. The hon. Gentleman has given voice to some of those doubts. The design note

was written in the context of existing legislation and as a relevant guide, covering both new and existing buildings. I hope that we shall shortly agree the Bill's final stages. We look forward to legislation being placed on the statute book. In the light of that legislation, we acknowledge the need to revise the document in order to establish mandatory requirements for new buildings.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that apart from the value of reviewing the design note, local authorities should bear in mind, in addition to the specifically technical aspects of the recommendations, the value of consulting the disabled and their organisations?

Mr. Rossi: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. When guidance is given to local authorities and when they have to consider access by the disabled to buildings, they should seek as much information as possible if they do not have the relevant knowledge. I am sure that local authorities will seek guidance and advice from as many quarters as possible.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon mentioned a fusion or an amalgamation of design note 18 with BSI 5810. I am informed that the BSI considered incorporating design note 18 into its document, but found that that was inappropriate. Therefore, its advice is that people should go to the Department of Education and Science if they want guidance.

Mr. Wigley: When I referred to fusion I did not mean in a blanket sense. I want BSI 5810 and the design note to apply to educational buildings. I recognise that BSI 5810 is a much broader regulation. As a result, it might not be appropriate for it to be involved in detail, unlike the design note. I wish to ensure that the best of both worlds can be obtained for educational buildings by making both applicable. If the design note is revised, it should take on board the other points covered in BSI 5810.

Mr. Rossi: As my noble Friend advised another place, all the suggestions made regarding the content of design note 18 will be seriously taken into account. I hope that many of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred will be dealt with in the revised design note. I hope that he will not be unduly unhappy with the ultimate result after the consultation process has taken place.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that design note 18 relates only to schools and not to other educational establishments. I presume that he had university buildings in mind. The Department of Education and Science has no direct responsibility for university buildings and the design note had the needs of the maintained sector primarily in mind, because they were the responsibility of the DES.
However, the University Grants Committee was represented on the working party that drew up design note 18 and as we consider the amendments that will have to be made to it we shall ensure that it is framed so that it will be at least as suitable for universities as is the BSI code of practice. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman. The criticisms are being taken seriously by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. He will bear them in mind when dealing with the revisions that have to be made to design note 18.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 3, line 23, after "premises" insert


to which section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 applies buildings or premises

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment brings in a cross-reference between the provisions of clause 3, relating to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The buildings with which we are concerned are those covered by section 4 of the 1970 Act. The amendment is helpful in clarifying the buildings about which we are concerned.

Mr. Rossi: This is a technical amendment. As clause 3 is drafted, paragraph (1)(a) of the new section 29A that we are inserting into the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 would have overlapped with paragraphs (1)(b) and (1)(c). That would have been undesirable and the amendment will make it clear that paragraph (1)(a) applies only to premises to which section (4) of the 1970 Act applies.
Although the amendment is technical, it raises the question of the relationship between planning controls and the provisions of the 1970 Act—matters which are frequently discussed. Responsibility for planning legislation rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and it may be helpful if I comment on that aspect, which is partly covered by the amendment.
The access provisions of the 1970 Act are a code of legislation to ensure that new buildings for use by the public contain facilities that will make them suitable for use by disabled people.
The 1971 Act, however, is concerned with the acceptability of a particular development in a particular location from the point of view of its effect on the surrounding area. These are two quite separate and distinct functions.
1.15 pm
Because planning controls are concerned with the effect of a proposal on the locality, planning authorities are not involved in the internal layout and design of buildings. The provision of some facilities inside buildings, whether for disabled people or for anybody else, is not a matter that can or should be controlled through the planning system. Where it has been found necessary to legislate in relation to internal design—for example, for fire precautions—this has been done through other legislation such as the building regulations, legislation which is a separate body of law from planning control.
There may, however, be occasions where the scope of planning controls and the needs of disabled people overlap. In particular, the arrangements for access to a development can be a planning matter and the suitability of the arrangements for access to a building by members of the public, including disabled members of the public, can raise issues of public amenity, which a local planning authority could take into account in determining a planning application.
In planning. each case has to be looked at on its individual merits. However, where a planning authority comes to the conclusion that access to the building by disabled people raises planning issues, it can use its planning powers as appropriate.
I do not think it would be right, however, to overestimate the extent to which planning powers can ensure the provision of the full range of facilities that disabled people need in the buildings. The planning legislation exists for quite separate purposes and cannot double as an enforcement mechanism for the provisions of the 1970 Act, as is sometimes asked for, giving rise to disappointment when it is found that it cannot be done by some interested parties outside. Because planning legislation cannot do those things we have the access provisions of the 1970 Act, and for that reason clause 6 is brought in to strengthen them.
We have announced our intention of issuing a circular to explain the provisions of this Bill. It is our intention to include in that circular advice to planning authorities on their powers to require access to buildings for disabled people.
I thought that it would be helpful if I spelt out the role of the planning laws and why they are inappropriate to deal with the facilities to be made available for the disabled using public buildings.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister has expanded on the technical amendment to discuss some of the more general consequences of the application of the Town and Country Planning Act to access for the disabled. I have one or two relevant points that I intended to bring into the later debate but they are probably better covered on this amendment now that the Minister has expanded the discussion.
The Minister has made an important statement, which was intimated already for Scotland by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, that the interpretation of the Town and Country Planning Act in England and Wales and the 1972 Act in Scotland allows local authorities to withhold planning permission in relevant cases if access for disabled people is not facilitated in a development. That has not been appreciated by those who have had to live with planning legislation for the past decade. In the debate last Friday I gave two examples that were given to me by planning authorities showing that to use section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 in that way would be ultra vires. By issuing a circular, the Government will clarify the position as it relates to the 1971 Act, and I welcome that.
I accept that toilets and the width of corridors are not town and country planning matters. However, whether a person can enter a building is a town and country planning matter. The Minister accepts, as has the Department of the Environment in letters to me, that the interpretation that the Government now put on section 29 of the 1971 Act is such that in relevant cases involving access to a new supermarket, a new library or other public building, access should be provided for disabled people through planning legislation. That can pertinently be raised and dealt with at the planning stage.
If such facilities are provided at planning stage, it is so much cheaper and so much more effective than trying to adapt a building later. Local authorities have the significant power to withhold planning permission, or at least to request a change in the proposal. I hope that local authorities will use that power sensibly and sensitively, where appropriate, to ensure that only after a building is built is it discovered that steps prevent disabled people and people in wheelchairs from entering it. I welcome the Minister's statement. It is an important statement and I hope that local authorities will take note of it.

Mr. Rossi: I shall respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). Of course I agree 100 per cent. with him that it is relatively inexpensive to make a new building accessible to disabled people if these matters are thought of properly and conscientiously at the design stage. If that happens an unnecessary step will not create an unnecessary barrier to a disabled person or person in a wheelchair. Lifts will not be built just a few centimeters too tight for a wheelchair to go in, and once in, they will not be built so that once in, the person in that wheelchair is unable to reach the buttons. These are design matters which, unhappily, are overlooked from time to time, not through malice but through lack of initial thought.
Amending the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 will place a new duty on local planning authorities. In future, when granting planning permission for premises to which the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act applies, local planning authorities will be required to draw the attention of the developer to his duty to provide facilities for disabled people. They will also be required to draw his attention to the British Standards Institution's code of practice for access for the disabled to buildings—the BSI 5810, to which we have already made reference this morning. That will be the subject of the circular to which I have already referred and which the hon. Member welcomed a few moments ago.

Mr. Wigley: Will the circular refer to section 29 of the 1971 Act?

Mr. Rossi: Yes. It will express the view of my Department and the Department of the Environment about the way in which we should like local authorities to exercise their powers in relation to access for disabled people to buildings. Developers, conversely will have a duty which we are imposing upon them by another amendment. But I shall not anticipate it, as I have no doubt that the hon. Member will wish to refer to it.
It has become fashionable to denigrate the achievements of the 1970 Act in ensuring the provision of access for disabled people. Some people are claiming that Act is being widely flouted by developers. That is less than fair. A survey commissioned by the Department of the Environment from the National Building Agency, an independent body, showed that the 1970 Act was being widely adhered to. However, lapses have occurred, but not usually in the more important areas such as entry to the building or movement within it. Lapses occur mainly in areas such as that of signposting facilities, and the provisions are being strengthened by clause 5.
In our discussions of these matters we must remember that the 1970 Act was not retrospective and many buildings were in existence before it came into effect. In many cases that legacy is causing the problems that unhappily exist for disabled persons. It is only now that buildings which have been designed since 1970 are beginning to come into use, because of the length of time that it takes to go through all the stages of getting a building off the drawing board and into bricks and mortar and concrete and steel. We know the time that it takes from the conception of an idea, to the arranging of finance, getting planning permission, going to a public inquiry and resisting all the local amenity objectors. There are many hazards.
There has been a great move forward in thinking on these matters, which has been assisted by the public interest in the International Year of Disabled People. One hopes that as time progresses these problems for the disabled will gradually disappear, so that they will be able to participate fully in everyday social life.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 4, line 19, leave out "section" and insert
sections 7 and

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment is purely technical and is consequential on other amendments.

Mr. Rossi: The amendment is a little more than technical. It is of some importance and relevance to what we have just been saying. The clause will extend the provisions of section 7 of the 1970 Act so that signs must be provided indicating that provision is made for the disabled in buildings where there is provision and which come within the scope of sections 8 and 8A of the 1970 Act. The amendment will ensure that the attention of developers is drawn to this requirement when they receive planning permission for such buildings. To that extent, it goes beyond a mere technicality. It is very much an improvement on the existing law. For that reason, I, too, commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 4, line 21, leave out
, subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this section,

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 11.

Mr. Wigley: The amendments allow for the definitions used in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to be applied to the Bill. That seems to be eminently sensible, in that the provisions of that Act and the provisions of the Bill are working at one. The amendments should make the understanding of the legislation that much simpler for those who have to live with it.

Mr. Rossi: The amendments enable the definition of the code of practice on access for the disabled to be amended by order. It is done by some very technical provisions, but that is the overall effect, and for that reason I, too, commend the amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12 agreed to.

New Clause A

ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED TO SANITARY APPLIANCES AT PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT

Lords amendment: No. 13, after clause 3, insert
("A. The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (10) of section 20 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (provision of sanitary appliances at places of entertainment)—
(11) A notice under this section shall draw the attention of the person on whom it is served—

(a) to sections 6(1) and 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970; and
(b) to the code of practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings.

(12) In subsection (11) of this section "the code of practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" means, subject to subsection (13) of this section, the British Standards Institution code of practice referred to as BS.5810: 1979.
(13) Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (power to define certain expressions for the purposes of provisions of that Act) shall have effect as if any reference in it to a provision of that Act included a reference to this section.".

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The clause is an important addition to the Bill. In language that we can understand, its title means the ability of disabled people to go to the toilet at places of entertainment.
Over the years we have heard of the difficulties that disabled people have experienced over the toilet arrangements in places of entertainment—theatres, cinemas, and so on. There has been a strong feeling that there should be progress on the matter. I am delighted that it has been possible to introduce an amendment that goes some way towards meeting this requirement.
We are dealing with new provisions affecting new buildings. There is a backlog of old buildings that would be difficult to alter in all the ways that we would wish.
The clause introduces the British Standards Institution code of practice, BS.5810, into the context of sanitary appliances in places of entertainment. I hope that it will mean the dawn of a new era, and that from now on disabled people will no longer experience the difficulties that they have had in the past from the absence of such facilities.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so kind about the amendment, which was a Government amendment.
Under section 20 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, local authorities in England and Wales can if need be serve notices on those responsible for premises such as places of entertainment, hotels, public houses and restaurants, requiring the adequate provision of sanitary conveniences for use by members of the public. Persons served with such notices have an additional duty, under sections 6(1) and 7 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, to ensure that this provision includes and signposts facilities for the disabled, in so far as that it is practicable and reasonable. A notice could itself stipulate these facilities, but otherwise it is at present left to those on whom notices are served to appraise themselves of their duty under the 1970 Act.
The new clause would strengthen section 20 of the 1976 Act, by requiring that notices served under it must postively draw attention to the additional duty under the 1970 Act, and also to the British Standards Institution code of practice for access for the disabled to buildings. That code of practice includes recommendations on the layout and fitment of lavatory facilities for the disabled.
As the 1976 Act extends only to England and Wales, this new clause amending it has equal application. Existing powers under section 24 of the Building (Scotland) Act 1959 will enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to prescribe that orders served by local authorities on owners of existing buildings in Scotland must also draw attention to the 1970 Act and the BSI code of practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4

PLANNING (SCOTLAND)—ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED TO BUILDINGS ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 14, leave out Clause 4.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment may appeal to Conservative Members in another context, but we shall not go into that now. The clause deals with the application to Scotland of provisions that we shall discuss in more detail when we reach Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 17. The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill was passing through Parliament in parallel with this Bill. For various reasons it was a matter of urgency that that Bill reached the statute book, and it has done so before this Bill. As a result, the provisions made in the clause are unnecessary because the powers have already been applied to Scotland. The amendment deletes the clause so as not to duplicate legislation.

Mr. Rossi: The amendment is acceptable.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause B

FURTHER PROVISION AS TO DUTY TO PROVIDE FOR NEEDS OF THE DISABLED

Lords amendment: No. 15, after clause 5 insert—
("B.—(1) In each of sections 4(1), 5(1), 6(1), 8(1) and 8A(1) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (which impose on persons undertaking the provision of public buildings etc. certain duties as regards the needs for the disabled).—

(a) for the words "provision, in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable" there shall be substituted the words "appropriate provision"; and
(b) at the end there shall be added the words "unless such body as may be prescribed by the Secretary of state is satisfied, afer carrying out any procedures which may be so prescribed, that in the circumstances it is either not practicable to make such provision or not reasonable that such provision should be made; and different bodies and different procedures may be prescribed for different classes of buildings or other premises to which this subsection applies".

(2) After the said section 4(1), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) In subsection (1) above "appropriate provision", in relation to any case, means provision conforming with


so much of the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings as is relevant to that case and "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and in the foregoing provisions of this subsection "the Code of Pracice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" means the British Standards Institution code of practice referred to as BS 5810: 1979.".
(3) After the said section 5(1) the following words shall be inserted as section 5(1A)—
Subsection (1A) of section 4 of this Act shall apply in relation to the interpretation of the last foregoing subsection of this section as the said subsection (1A) applies in relation to the interpretation of subsection (1) of that section.";
and the same words shall be inserted as sections 6(1A) and 8A(1A) of the said Act of 1970.
(4) The following subsection shall be inserted after the said section 8(1)—
(1A) In subsection (1) above "appropriate provision", in relation to any case, means provision conforming with so much of the Design Note as is relevant to that case and "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either house of Parliament; and in the foregoing provisions of this subsection "the Design note" means Design Note 18 "Access for the Physically Disabled to Educational Buildings", published on behalf of the Secretary of State.".
(5) In section 28 of the said Act of 1970 (which empowers the Secretary of State to define certain expressions appearing therein), after the word "Parliament" there shall be inserted"—(a)" and at the end there shall be added the words"; or
(b) amend—

(i) the difinition of "the Code of Practice for Access for the Disabled to Buildings" in section 4(1A) of this Act; and
(ii) the definition of "the Design Note" in section 8(1A) of this Act.".

(6) This section shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument.
(7) This section extends to England and Wales only.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 17.

Mr. Wigley: This is an important amendment. It extends the way in which the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 provides for facilities for the disabled in buildings to which the public have right of access. That matter has been debated at length. It was a major part of the Silver Jubilee committee report "Can Disabled People Go Where You Go?" published a couple of years ago.
The main recommendation in the report for central Government action was that
Legislation should be introduced to make the access sections of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 mandatory. Further, the law should be amended to place on developers the burden of proof that to make a new building accessible would be unreasonable or impractical.
The words "practical and reasonable" in the 1970 Act have caused difficulty. They provide a loophole for those who do not want to abide by the spirit of the Act.
I accept what the Minister said in the previous debate, namely, that we can overstate the extent to which the 1970 Act has been abused. But it is those instances of abuse on which our attention is focused. There have been sufficient examples of important public buildings where provisions

for the disabled have not been made, which has caused the strength of feeling which manifested itself in the report of the Silver Jubilee committee.
The planning laws deal with access, but there needs to be a more detailed consideration, in terms of BS 5810, of provision inside buildings. If a developer does not abide by the spirit of the 1970 Act, as amended by the Bill, what is the redress? This amendment removes the words "practical and reasonable" and puts in the words "appropriate provision". It introduces the concept of a body that will determine whether a provision is appropriate. That body will be an outside body to ajudicate on the developer. The developer will be ruled upon by an external body on whether the provision is appropriate. That is changing the onus in the way that was called for by the Silver Jubilee committee.
However, the provision will be operated by order. The Government have said in another place that there will be widespread discussion of the matter, but there is some concern about the way in which it will operate. There is a feeling that, ideally, the provisions of the British Standards code of practice on access for disabled people to buildings should have the same status as building regulations, and that they could be imposed in the same way. That would not do what Baroness Young said that the Government feared would happen, that there would be a new type of offence and a new structure of fines, which the Government want to avoid. It would bring the provisions of BS 5810 into the realm of building regulations, and it would be subject to the same controls as building regulations.
When the Government discuss the matter with bodies outside the House—local authorities, the bodies which represent disabled people, and everyone else—I hope that they will bear in mind the possibility of moving towards the application of building regulations to cover that aspect. I know that the Government have considered that in the past, as parliamentary answers have shown, and I hope that the Government will act quickly in the context of the amendment.
Several questions that arise would be covered if the code of practice were given the status of building regulations. One is the question of appeal. Another is the question of sanction. It would also cover the whole question of the body that deals with the matter—the local building regulation authority, normally, the district council.
A number of such questions are unanswered. The amendment itself is highly desirable, and moves in the right direction. If I have any criticism, it is that we do not know the answers to all the questions and implications. My criticism is not of the amendment. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will cast further light in this connection.

Mr. Rossi: I shall explain briefly the purport of this amendment, which was a Government amendment moved in the other place. Its intention is fourfold.
First, the amendment moves the onus on to the developer, to show that it would not be reasonable or practicable to provide facilities for disabled people. At present, the statutory requirement in the 1970 Act provides him with an escape which is, to all intents and purposes, unchallengeable. That is now being changed.
Secondly, the amendment incorporates the BSI code of practice on access for the disabled into the legislation.


Thus, the developer will know exactly what he needs to do to comply with the Act, and the public will know whether it is being complied with.
Thirdly, the amendment provides for a body—which still has to be prescribed—and I understand that it is this uncertainty that is causing the present worries of the hon. Gentleman and of people outside the House—which will adjudicate as to whether it would be reasonable or practicable in the circumstances to provide for the needs of disabled people.
Fourthly, the amendment will enable pressure to be brought to bear on developers who do not abide by the prescribed body's views.
The criticisms that have been made by the hon. Gentleman and by other like-minded people are to the effect that "It is all very well, but no sanctions are imposed for non-compliance. Who will the prescribed bodies be, and what will be their effect?" I understand those worries. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no preconceived prejudices about how the provision should be implemented. We intend to consult all the interested bodies, including local authorities and the representatives of disabled people, to see how the machinery can best be set up to make the new clause effective.
There are a variety of possibilities for the prescribed bodies. I mentioned last week during our debate on the International Year of Disabled People that perhaps local authorities could deal with problems relating to the provision of induction loops for buildings. But that was an illustrative example, because we could have not only local authorities but independent bodies such as the Institute of Arbitrators and even bodies specially established for this purpose, or even voluntary organisations. No decision has been taken.
We have to bear in mind that we are having to cater for a variety of circumstances. One body could be an expert on the design of schools or railway stations, or shops or cinemas, and it might be necessary to have a number of different prescribed bodies to adjudicate on different types of buildings. This is one of the matters which will deserve and will receive the widest possible consultation to see what kind of framework of prescribed bodies we should set up to exercise the adjudicating function being given to a prescribed body in the amendment.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that one of the major problems about access under the 1970 Act has been the lack of sanction? Therefore, in considering the prescribed body perhaps the Government could pay special regard to that aspect.

Mr. Rossi: I hope that the views of the prescribed body will have considerable status as does, for example, a report by the Ombudsman when matters of alleged maladministration are referred to him.
As the clause stands, I agree that there are no penalties for non-compliance. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if it turns out that developers are flouting the views of the prescribed body, we shall give urgent consideration to whether penalties for non-compliance should be provided. But we have not done so at this stage because the evidence is that there has been no widespread flouting by developers of the provisions of the 1970 Act. That will apply with

greater certainty now that we are placing a positive burden upon developers with an outside independent body to check upon their activities.
The cause for complaint is very unlikely to arise. We reserve our position to take measures and to take action if experience shows that it does. But at the moment we do not think we should use the traditional sledgehammer to crack a nut. We prefer to leave this to the good faith and good sense of those concerned in the design and provision of buildings now that we have in legislation clear guidelines for their use.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause C

EXTENSION TO NORTHERN IRELAND

Lords amendment: No. 16, after clause 6, insert—
C. An Order in Council made under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 which contains a statement that its purposes correspond to those of this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament instead of he order or a draft of the order being subject to the procedure set out in paragraph 1(4) or (5) of that Schedule.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 18.

Mr. Wigley: These amendments extend the Bill to Northern Ireland, which clearly is desirable and which I should have liked to do at an earlier stage had not the technicalities dealing with Northern Ireland legislation been beyond my capability at that stage. I am glad that it has been possible for the Government to suggest a form of words by which this can be done that is acceptable to those in Northern Ireland who have to live with legislation by order rather than with substantive primary legislation. The amendment is an essential feature, none the less, in that disabled people in Northern Ireland—that beleaguered Province—should have the same benefits as people in other parts of the United Kingdom under the Bill.

Mr. Rossi: The clause was inserted in the Bill during the Committee stage in another place at the instigation of Baroness Masham of Ilton. At the time, it was welcomed both by the Government and by the official Opposition. I should like to take the opportunity of this occasion to endorse the Government's support for it. From my own recent knowledge of the affairs of the Province, I am sure that its people, particularly those with a special interest in the care of the disabled, many of whom I had the honour and privilege of meeting when I was working in Northern Ireland, will welcome the fact that the provisions of the Bill are to be reproduced in the Province. I am particularly pleased that this should happen in this International Year of Disabled People.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.

Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 18 agreed to.

Title

Lords amendment: No. 19, in line 3, after "disabled" insert "and blind".

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 23.

Mr. Wigley: This and the associated amendments are consequential and technical amendments to the long title of the Bill, consequent upon matters that we have already discussed. There is no need to go into great detail about them.
I should, however, like to take this opportunity to welcome the fact that the Bill is likely to reach the statute book in a matter of days rather than weeks, and that this should have happened in the International Year of Disabled People. This is most appropriate. The great danger that disabled people have felt over the past months and felt in the run-up to this year is that people would give great attention to the needs of the disabled during 1981 but that at the end of the year their attention might move on to some equally deserving cause and that there would be no lasting benefit to the disabled. One way of ensuring lasting benefit is to have changes enshrined in the law with which people have to live and the benefits of which will accrue to the disabled for years to come.
I hope that the Bill will benefit disabled people. We have yet to see how some of the provisions will work in practice. The Minister has stated that the Government will keep an eye on some aspects of the measure to see whether they need to be strengthened. One clause provides for the Government to come back with further recommendations to strengthen the legislation relating to provisions for the disabled. I hope that the Bill will be a significant step forward. It is not an earth-shattering measure, but I hope that it will have some practical benefit.
I should like to thank my sponsors who have stood by me over many months during which the Bill has been going through Parliament. I also thank the outside bodies, particularly the Wales Council for the Disabled and RADAR, which have been most helpful, the Department, and the parliamentary draftsmen who have helped me to redraft parts of the Bill into an acceptable form. I also thank the 27 disablement organisations that have campaigned to attract support for some of the concepts in the Bill, and also the 329 hon. Members who supported the early-day Motion which helped to bring the matter into focus.

Mr. John Golding: Those hon. Members associated with the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 are pleased that the attempt has been made to amend the Act. This is perhaps not the end. Many of us have been disappointed that insufficient progress has been made in respect of access. This Bill represents an improvement, although many of us feel that the House will have to return to the issue. There is, nevertheless, gratitude among all those concerned with access and mobility that the Bill takes us one step along the road to providing total access to public buildings and other places for the disabled.

Mr. John Major: I wish to apologise to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) for the fact that I was unable to remain in the House throughout today's discussions on this most important Bill. The hon. Gentleman was sufficiently open-minded to describe the Bill as a relatively modest measure. That is true in the sense that it seeks to give assurance within a limited sphere. However, there are in this country half a million severely disabled people and well over a million who are partially disabled. They will be pleased about the fact that in this, of all years, a Back Bencher, with the considerable assistance, in some respects, of the Government, has been able to pilot this measure on to the statute book. I am most grateful for the opportunity to congratulate without reservation his very considerable achievement.

Mr. Rossi: These are technical amendments necessitated by amendments that we have already agreed.
I take this opportunity of responding to the hon. Gentleman and his references to what is needed to be done for the disabled by saying that we should not be content just with the International Year of Disabled People and, once that is over, cease to do anything more for them. It is not the Government's intention that that should be so. We regard this acceptable Bill as one of a number of things that have started this year and which I hope will continue and make the lives of those less fortunate than ourselves much more tolerable than they have been up to now.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) on having seized his position in the ballot to choose this as a subject to bring before the House, so that we have had this opportunity to legislate upon it. I congratulate him also on having piloted the Bill safely to harbour—assisted with a fair wind from the Government. I think that all the disabled will, in their turn, give the hon. Member their heartfelt thanks and congratulations for what he has achieved.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 23 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I, too, may be allowed to congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) on his achievement.

Countryside (Scotland) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

GRANTS AND LOANS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 31, leave out
such conditions as they think fit
and insert "conditions".

Mr. Peter Fraser:: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Bill returns to the House with remarkably few amendments to it. I hope that that is an indication that a considerable amount of work was done on the Bill while it was in the House before going to another place. I hope that it is also an indcation that it was acknowledged in another place that the Bill enjoys a wide measure of support in Scotland, it being based on the deliberations of a working party that was set up in 1979 to discuss amendments to countryside legislation in Scotland.
That working party consisted of members from the Countryside Commission for Scotland, local authorities in Scotland, the Scottish Landowners Federation, the Scottish Countryside Activities Council, and the National Farmers Union. All of the proposals have been brought together and have, with few exceptions, enjoyed the support of anyone who has any interest in the countryside in Scotland.
One of my hon. Friends representing a Scottish constituency was at one time minded to be a little difficult about the Bill. However, when I reminded him that one of the bodies supporting my proposals was the Scottish Ladies Mountaineering Club, faced with the daunting prospect of those elegant women he retreated as quickly as possible to his own constituency.
I should like to put in context what is provided for by the clause. It simply transfers the statutory power to pay a countryside grant to local authorities from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Countryside Commission, and it repeals and re-enacts the power of the commission to give grants and make loans. This is nothing novel or extraordinary. It merely brings the practice in Scotland into line with statutory provisions that obtain in England and Wales.
Since 1 April 1979 the Countryside Commission for Scotland has acted as the Secretary of State's agent in disbursing grants to local authorities. Furthermore, it has already statutory responsibility for making grants to the private sector. Essentially, it is proposed that the clause should do nothing more than give statutory recognition to an existing practice. The effect of the amendment is to leave out
"such conditions as they think fit"
and insert "conditions". It is a drafting amendment to simplify the wording, without in any way altering the sense of the clause. The power to add "conditions" exists already.
2 pm
The amendment that was made in another place neither adds to nor detracts from what is provided. Possibly it adds nothing more than the school masterly antecedents of the

noble Lord who proposed the amendment and, who thought that if there were five words when one word would do, this legislature should prefer to use the one word.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3.

FURTHER PROVISION IN RELATION TO ACCESS AGREEMENTS.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 16, after "agreement" insert
, as at the first day of the twelve month period to which the consideration will relate,

Mr. Peter Fraser: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 3.

Mr. Fraser: This is a drafting amendment designed to remove an ambiguity concerning the basis on which land should be valued for access agreements as part of the process by which the district valuer arrives at a consideration to be paid to the owner for entering into an access agreement. There have been considerable difficulties in Scotland over the way in which the value of an access agreement is to be reached. The principal purpose of the clause is to provide a simple but clear basis for assessment.
In another place it was thought that there was some ambiguity about whether the assessment was to be based on a valuation without the access agreement. There has been some confusion, but it seems that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 put the issue beyond doubt. If the amendments are accepted, the district valuer will be clear that the land that requires to be valued is land that does not carry access at the time that he values it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

Clause 8

ESTABLISHMENT OF REGIONAL PARKS

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 40, after "an" insert "extensive"

Mr. Peter Fraser: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Mr. Fraser: These three amendments relate to the definition of regional parks, which for the first time are to be set up within Scotland. A regional park is a concept that does not exist in countryside legislation in Scotland. However, it is one that will be of considerable value in the development of the provision of access for the public in Scotland.
It was discovered in both this and the other place that there were problems in attempting to arrive at a precise definition so that people would understand what was being proposed. It is important that not only local authorities, which will be instrumental in setting up the parks, but members of the public who wish to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill have a clear understanding of them.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 merely move round the word "extensive". This is another example of the schoolmasterly antecedents of the noble Lord who proposed the amendment in another place. Lord Selkirk's amendment is possibly of greater importance. It may be a small alteration, but it is one that requires a moment's consideration.
The concept of regional parks in Scotland is novel. We have relatively little practical experience on which to draw. We are attempting to provide a definition that makes it clear that the use of the word "substantial" neither unintentionally restricts the use of the clause nor produces an ambiguity that might require resort to the courts of law for determination.
For example, the words "a substantial part" might have been construed in an absolute sense; that is to say, in a regional park as a whole it might be necessary to show that, for instance, 2 square miles were wholly given over to recreational purposes. Comparatively, they might be so defined as saying that it was to be considered that that part of the area was devoted to the recreational needs of the public in relation to the total area of the regional park.
The difficulty arises in this way. One can imagine in the hills of Scotland, either the Pentland hills or the Lomond hills in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson), that the development of a regional park might mean that there were hillsides carefully networked with a number of paths to which the public had access. The path would be narrow and might take up less than a small point of a per cent. of the total area. However, in terms of providing access to that part of the country, it could be substantial.
What concerned the mover of the amendment in another place and myself was that there might be an ambiguity in the sense that what was at issue was that a substantial part of the total area was required. In those circumstances, it was considered that it was reasonable—I now accept that it is reasonable—that the word "substantial" should be eliminated.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I wish to say a brief word on Lords amendment No. 6 and then to say how much I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) has accepted the amendment. There was concern about whether that might imply that a proportion of the area that was devoted to the recreational needs of the public should be high in relation to the whole area of the park. The reasons that my hon. Friend has given, that simply a pathway across a substantial part of the park could be included, should not preclude this clause from being applicable.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): On behalf of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) who, regrettably, is unable to be here today, I welcome the amendment about the new concept of parks in the clause. I am sure that it will be widely welcomed in Scotland as of great benefit. It is important that it should be included in the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) on being able to pilot the Bill to its successful conclusion. I trust that it will have a significant and beneficial effect on our Scots friends.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 11

POWER OF DISTRICT AND ISLANDS COUNCILS TO CONTROL NOISE IN THE COUNTRYSIDE

Lords amendment: No. 8,
Divide Clause 11 into two Clauses, the first (Power of district and islands councils to control noise in the countryside) consisting of page 9, lines 1 to 26, and the second (Extension of powers of rangers) consisting of page 9, lines 27 to 35.

Mr. Peter Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
In attempting to curry favour in another place I thought that I had so organised the layout of the Bill that it would fall in with the recommendations of the Committee chaired by Lord Renton. However, I regret to say that in one particular I failed. In clause 11 we have failed so to organise the provisions of the Bill and, as might be expected, that point was picked up in another place. That is all that the amendment relates to. It is not a point of substance, but simply a matter of layout.
I thank my sponsors for supporting me, and I thank the noble Lord Selkirk, who piloted the Bill through the other place for me. I am most grateful to them for their support. The Bill will be of substantial value to Scotland and to its people in obtaining regulated access to the enjoyment of the Scottish countryside.

Mr. Henderson: On behalf of Conservative Members, may I say how much we appreciate the considerable efforts that my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser) has made to put this significant measure on the statute book. It emphasises his concern for the countryside, for those who live and work there and for those who seek to enjoy it. The House has greatly benefited from my hon. Friend's considerable professional legal understanding. He has gone through a jungle of related measures. We appreciate the force of his personality and the way in which he has persuaded us all to accept this Bill, which has made speedy progress through the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Licensing (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Read a Second Time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Soley.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Mr. Clive Soley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The main object of the Bill is to correct an anomaly in the licensing law relating to special hours certificates. The Bill was taken through the other place by Lord Gainford. Section 81(4) of the Licensing Act 1964 allows a special hours certificate for a registered club to be revoked on the ground of disorder, but that does not apply to certain other places such as discotheques, public houses, proprietary clubs and so on.
I shall clarify the difference. A club that is run for its members by its members is a registered club. Examples of that are the Athenaeum and Carlton clubs. However, a privately owned club that offers services such as drinks, dancing, cabaret—and I dread to think what else—is a prorietary club, and is often known as a night club.
The Bill has been sympathetically received by the Magistrates Association, the Justices Clerks Society, the Brewers Society and the Association of Ballrooms Ltd. They do not seem to have any objection to it. 1 understand that there is general support for the Bill from all parties and interested groups. The permitted hours for the sale or supply of intoxicating liquors, where a special hours certificate is in force, are specified in section 76 of the 1964 Act. With certain exceptions, the evening closing hour on weekdays is extended to midnight and is further extended when music and dancing continues beyond that hour to 2 am, and in certain parts of London to 3 am, or the hour at which music and dancing finishes, whichever is the earlier.
At present, a special hours certificate must be granted by licensing justices with respect to premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, other than registered clubs, provided two conditions are fulfilled—a music and dancing licence has been issued, in London the issuing authority is the GLC, and the premises are structurally adapted and are to be used for the purposes of providing music and dancing and the provision of substantial refreshment, to which the sale of intoxicating liquor is ancillary. In other words, the premises are not to be used merely for the sale of intoxicating liquor.
Applications for special hours certificates for registered clubs are made to magistrates, and the court is bound to grant a certificate if conditions similar to those for licensed premises apply, except that in place of the condition that there must be a music and dancing licence in force for the premenceises, there is substituted the need for the court to be satisfied that the entertainments licensing authority, which is the GLC in London, has issued a certificate as to the suitability of the premises for the grant of a music and dancing licence.
In the case of a special hours certificate granted to a registered club, the Licensing Act provides that the chief officer of policy may apply to a magistrates' court for a revocation of the certificate at any time if the premises gain an unfortunate reputation for disorderly conduct.
At present, no such powers exists for revocation in respect of other licensed premises. The need for the Bill is the recognition that in certain premises there can be problems, often relating to violence, stemming from drink. The link between alcohol and casual violence has been strongly confirmed. It is a growing problem to which the police have to give a great deal of time and which causes much aggravation, pain and anxiety to neighbours of the club, as well as direct injury and sometimes death to individuals. It is an important area which, I suspect, we shall have to tackle much more seriously in the long run.
At present, section 81(4) of the Licensing Act gives scope for the revocation of a special hours certificate for a registered club on the grounds of proven disorder, but not for certain other premises. There is an anomaly.
Clause 1 intends to remove the anomaly by making an appropriate extension to the power of revocation in section 81(4). Clause 2 seeks to extend the Secretary of State's power to make rules prescribing the procedures on applications to licensing justices for a special hours certificate to applications that the police will shortly be able to make under the new section 81A(2) inserted in the Licensing Act 1964 by the Licensing (Amendment) Act 1980 for the imposition of a condition restricting the hours of a special hours certificate in order to reduce annoyance to residents.
This is a technical and fairly complicated area, but it is important, and the clear aim of the Bill is to enable the relevant authorities to act where there is evidence of violence related to drink.
I am indebted to Lord Gainford for introducing the Bill on his own initiative and taking it through another place. It is a sensible and important, albeit minor, measure. I am also indebted to the solicitor to the GLC, Mr. Beale, and his department for the background information that they have provided.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): I should like to intervene for a moment to state the Government's attitude to the Bill. It is one of welcome. I am sure that the House will. wish to join me in thanking the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) for his clear statement of what the Bill does and for his piloting of it through the House.
If, as we hope, the House consents to the Bill being given a Third Reading and it is passed, we shall take steps to bring it into operation as soon as practicable. Because of the Bill's connection with the provisions of the Licensing (Amendment) Act 1980, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to make the commencement order for that Act coterminous with the one for the Bill if it is enacted.
Before the 1980 Act can be brought fully into operation we have to amend the Crown court rules. I am glad to say that work on the amendment of the rules is nearly complete and we hope that it will not be long before both measures can be brought into operation.
We welcome this small but useful measure and we are grateful to my noble Friend Lord Gainford for having introduced it in another place. We believe that it will provide the police with a useful weapon in their armoury to deal more effectively with the incidence of violence arid hooliganism in badly run premises where late-night


drinking takes place under the authority of special hours certificates. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House and hope that it will receive a Third reading.

Mr. George Cunningham: In one sentence, the Opposition fully support the measure and the thoughts just expressed by the Minister.

Sir Bernard Braine: As chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism, I give my warm support to the Bill. It is both necessary and timely. In its modest way, it will strengthen law and order and protect the young. It is timely because most people are beginning to wake up to the warnings that some of us have been uttering for many years about the way in which alcohol abuse has been growing.
Over the last decade consumption has risen by over one-third and even higher among young people. The price that that is exacting is very heavy indeed. More young people than ever are being harmed in their health. Hooliganism and violent behaviour in which alcohol is a factor are growing features of our society. A good deal of crime is now linked with drink. The major cause of death among young males between the ages of 16 and 24 is road accident and half of those who die have imbibed alcohol above the legal limit.
The Bill makes a modest contribution to the easement of a serious problem. Anything that tightens the law and facilitates the control of special hours certificates can only be welcomed. I have no doubt that the Bill will be helpful to the police, but in my view—I hope that I carry hon. Gentlemen with me—it is high time that we gave the magistrates more power to control alcohol consumption.
Section 77 of the 1964 Act leaves no option to the magistrates but to grant a special hours certificate if a music and dancing licence is in force for the premises and these have been structurally adapted. Section 77 is quite explicit. It says that licensing justices "shall" grant special hours certificates.
I hope, therefore, that before long we shall have a change in the law which will enable local magistrates to use their discretion in such matters. Local magistrates and licensing justices know the problems arising from alcohol abuse in their own areas better than anyone else. Special hours certificates are related to where music and dancing takes place. For the past decade we have witnessed an increase in mob violence erupting in such places. In residential areas such behaviour causes nuisance and annoyance to law-abiding residents and damage to their property. There is evidence to show that almost one in five crimes of violence occurs in places where alcohol is served and such violence was said to have occurred under the influence of alcohol.
I see the Bill also against the rising tide of under-age drinking and increased evidence of health damage to both young people especially between the ages of 18 and 24. It is salutory to remind ourselves that according to a survey commissioned by the DHSS on drinking patterns in England and Wales, one in every four 18 to 24-year-old males and one in every eight females had experienced drunkenness bouts on three or four occasions in the previous three months and one in every seven males in the

same age group and one in 25 females had been drinking well above the upper limits for safety. That is the pattern among a sizeable number of young people today.
It is important to reflect on those figures, especially at a time of growing lawlessness in our big cities. Young people have a lower tolerance to alcohol than their elders. Aggressiveness shows itself at an earlier stage and at a lower level of alcohol consumption than among older people.
I have warned the House before, and I warn it again today, that either we bring alcohol under control or it will control us.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley). I confirm the figures that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has given. The House may recall the problems that I had 18 months ago when, after young people had been drinking at a disco in my constituency, a train at Neasden was wrecked with sledgehammers. Railwaymen were injured in the incident. As a consequence, special precautions have to be taken on the whole of the Metropolitan line to Wembley. That was a direct result of hundreds of youngsters drinking too much at a discotheque in Willesden Green.
The figures are right. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North has done a worthy service. Out of every 1,000 people, one dies from being murdered, six die through excessive alcohol—I refer to cirrhosis of the live—rand 250 die through excessive smoking.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) on introducing this important measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) was correct to describe the Bill as modest. The real problem is that it is a modest Bill. In my view, the House has not begun to face the measure of the problem that abuse of alcohol means to our society.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) gave a particularly important example of the type of damage that alcohol abuse causes at all levels of society. I remember that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) received a written reply to a question some months ago about the numbers of deaths in police custody in Scotland. I recall that in well over half the cases listed the cause of death was alcohol poisoning or suffocation as a result of vomiting through excess alcohol. It is a major problem, and Parliament cannot run away from it.
I shall close my brief remarks by quoting Mr. R. E. Kendall, writing in the British Medical Journal on 10 February 1978. He said:
The fact is that ethanol is a drug of dependence like heroin and amylobarbitone and differs from them only in that a much larger quantity has to be ingested for much longer before physical dependence develops.
The problem is that the House has not yet begun to face the political problem involved.
In the same journal, Mr. Kendall ends by saying:
Politicians will be reluctant to pass legislation as they know or suspect that it will be electorally unpopular. They may also be reluctant to do anything that affects their own drinking habits. There are sound reasons for suspecting that as a class their consumption is high.
I hope that the Bill is just the beginning of a series of measures to deal with this serious problem.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I hope that the House will think that it is appropriate that, as I represent a brewing constituency, I should say that whilst those whose livelihood depends on the brewing industry would not associate themselves with everything that has been said by the last three hon. Members who have spoken, the brewing industry is as concerned as anybody in our society that lawlessness should be eradicated and that the police should have adequate powers to do their job properly. In so far as it is an extension of those powers to reduce an evil, the Bill is welcomed by everyone in my constituency.
As a lawyer, I welcome the amendment that the Bill makes to the law by way of textual amendment as recommended by the Renton committee. We should go on and on making our law clear and understandable in the technical way in which it is being done in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is an important Bill. It deals with the problem of second homes, which has affected many parts of Wales and elsewhere. The problem is that in some counties, such as Gwynedd, there are as many as 15,000 second homes identified by the local authority. As a result of the growth in second homes, difficulty has been experienced by local people in obtaining houses in which to live. The object of the Bill is to give control to the local authorities and district councils so that they can designate a house as a second home.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): This Ten-Minute Bill deals with a topic that I know is of considerable concern, not only in his constituency, but in other parts of England and Wales. The areas affected—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

GAELIC LANGUAGE (NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: With the permission of the sponsor, 24 July.

TOBACCO PRODUCTS (CONTROL OF ADVERTISING, SPONSORSHIP AND SALES PROMOTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 July.

CO-OWNERSHIP OF FLATS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? clay named.

RATING SYSTEM (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

RESIDENTIAL HOMES ACT 1980 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

IMPRISONMENT OF PROSTITUTES (ABOLITION) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [19 June], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

SMALLER BUSINESSES (MINISTERIAL AND OTHER FUNCTIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT 1867 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [19 June], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

DOGS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Bill has not been printed, I cannot put the Question to the House.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 July.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Bill has not been printed, I cannot put the Question to the House.
Second Reading what day? No day named.

RATING (BUSINESS PREMISES RELIEF) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Bill has not been printed, I cannot put the Question to the House.
Second Reading what day? No day named.

ABOLITION OF WARRANT SALES (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

GARDEN SUPPLIES (SUNDAY TRADING) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

MINIMUM HOUSING STANDARDS (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

INCITEMENT TO RACIAL HATRED BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Bill has not been printed, I cannot put the Question to the House.
Second Reading what day? No day named.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL

Ordered, That, in respect of the Friendly Societies Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Community Service

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Michael Meacher: The justification for the proposal of a voluntary nationwide scheme of community service is contained in early-day motion 59, which I tabled on the subject and which has now attracted over 60 signatures. It says that the scheme
would expand the horizons of young people in a manner that promoted concern for the wider community, reduce the two nations divide in society, and ensure that many additional worthwhile tasks are undertaken which would not otherwise be done".
That objective is almost self-evidently desirable, but I am well aware that it has attracted criticism in certain quarters, much of it in my view wholly misguided. I shall answer the criticisms point by point.
First, objection is taken to the scheme as though it proposes a system of underpaid community service forced upon young people because there is no alternative—a system which is then treated as the answer to youth unemployment. Such a view can be described only as a parody of what is proposed. I shall deal with the compulsion point in a moment. I say unambiguously at the outset that this scheme is not proposed as, or intended to be, the answer, or even an answer, to the issue of youth unemployment.
Today there are nearly 1 million unemployed people under the age of 25. Everyone who signed my early-day motion would, like me, assert unreservedly that the only answer to mass unemployment of young people, as indeed of the rest of the population, is a complete reversal of the Government's cruel and brutish economic policies in favour of a steady but sustained expansion of the economy.
That point was explicitly taken on board by my early-day motion, which began by
insisting that the fundamental priority for young people at this time is a major expansion of education, training and jobs and that escalating unemployment can only be brought down by alternative economic policies
That is why the Labour Party is now firmly united behind an alternative economic strategy.
The scheme could not begin to solve the fundamental problem of youth unemployment. It would only remove youngsters from the unemployment registers for up to one year. It is not intended to be in any way an answer to youth unemployment. Nor is it, as some have alleged, compulsory. It is not intended to be forced labour, or the thin end of the nasty wedge of conscription. The fact that some Conservative Members favour that course is no reason for not putting forward a voluntary scheme which, despite superficial resemblances, has different motives and objectives. It is a reason for making clear why the Labour Party believes that this scheme is inherently desirable, irrespective of the level of unemployment. We would still support it if the level of unemployment were zero. We utterly reject any compulsory scheme with militaristic overtones, or any scheme which could be manipulated in that direction.
The scheme should be as universal in its take-up as a system of strong, positive incentives allows. The great merit of the scheme is that it brings together in a similar experience those from different classes, backgrounds and endowments. The middle-class Oxbridge aspirant will join the working-class youth from a deprived background in

Oldham. If it is to do that, within the parameters of a voluntary scheme, the incentives must be powerful. I envisage that they would include the fact that potential employers or higher education authorities would regard favourably those who had satisfactorily completed such a period of service.
Even more would the proponents of the scheme reject any notion of compulsion if that was combined with militaristic overtones. We utterly repudiate any idea that the scheme should be seen to be, or used as, the thin edge of the wedge of conscription for the reintroduction of military service. I am well aware that some on the Conservative Benches see it as an opportunity to introduce the options of either compulsory military service or compulsory community service—military service for the barbed-wire and hair shirt characters with real virility and community service as a soft option for the trendies, lessimbued with patriotism.
I cannot too strongly emphasise my disgust and revulsion for any such concept. I am not suggesting that the Government share that view. In fact, I shall later say why they do not. It is the exact antithesis of the scheme that I am explaining. I hope that the Minister will eschew any such idea. However, we are not encouraged by the Secretary of State for Employment seeking to fill a number of youth opportunities programme places through the Ministry of Defence.
The scheme should not be seen as an answer to the ugly riots that have scarred the face of Britain during the past year, and more so during the past week. The causes of those riots are escalating unemployment, a crumbling urban decay in our inner city areas and—in certain areas such as Brixton—aggressive policing. Clearly, the remedies are a massive programme of job creation, especially in large cities. It would be wrong to manipulate schemes such as this for purposes for which they are not intended and which they would not satisfy.
I have rejected all the things that the scheme is not, and now I address myself to the issues tha it really is about. I fully recognise the genuine issues and problems that exist, and that that is why Youth Call is seeking to launch a genuine debate. One issue concerns payment, and the suggestion that has been made that this scheme represents exploitation of cheap labour. We are not helped by the Tory early-day motion, which speaks of "under-compensated public service", which has all the aura of exploitation about it. Nor are we helped by the suggestion that has been made that the Secretary of State for Employment favours the German scheme—that is what he is reported to believe; I shall say no more than that—whereby unemployment benefit is made dependent on accepting a job opportunities or training place. 'We deplore both such ideas. When society, as a result of current Government policies, treats young people so ruthlessly, there can be no question of not giving young people who undertake community service a reasonable and proper reward.
The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) mentioned £15 a week, which I am bound to say is totally unacceptable to us. Equally, the Government failed to raise the YOP allowance from £23·50 a week to the £28 which is due. I believe that a rate of about £30 a week would be reasonable. It would be well above the unemployment benefit level but could not be confused


with the rate for the job, since—if it needs to be stated again—it is not jobs that are being filled but community service that is being undertaken.
Two other main issues should be faced and debated. One is the relationship of this scheme to the youth opportunities programme. I welcomed, and still welcome, the statement by the Secretary of State on 21 November last year, committing the Government to the provision of 440,000 YOP places, and now to the provision of training and job experience for all school leavers who cannot get jobs. Although I approve of those initiatives, which contrast with much else of Government policy, I acknowledge their drawbacks. One is that the Manpower Services Commission has acknowledged that a 30 per cent. job overlap is involved in the YOP scheme. Another is that quite a lot of placements turn out to mean work experience on the employer's premises. One must question the value of a placement which involves, for example, standing behind the counter at Debenhams. A third drawback is that an inevitable class bias is inherent in the YOP scheme because it is confined to the unemployed. By contrast, what I propose now embraces also the non-unemployed. It is that universal applicability across the nation which radically alters the whole concept of what is proposed in what I believe is a necessary and desirable way.
Then there is the very real and difficult question of ensuring that there is no loss of genuine fully paid jobs as a result of these placements. My initial answer to that is that this scheme would be organised with the closest consultation with trade unions, both nationally and locally, as well as with the employers, and that no slot would be filled, at least for a reasonable period—I envisage, say, six to 12 months—if the trade unions insisted that it be kept open because of the prospect of filling it as a regular, fully-paid job. If a negative veto of such a kind were nevertheless still insufficient, consideraton could and should be given to providing the trade unions with a job guarantee, whereby the acceptance of social or public service volunteers would be conditional on providing a non-redundancy pledge for existing workers—for example, in the home help scheme. Such job guarantees have already been operated successfully for similar schemes, for example, in Sunderland, and in my view no doubt they could be extended for this wider scheme.
One last issue on which I want to touch concerns whether it makes sense, when there are already dozens of voluntary schemes which could expand usefully but are desperately short of funds, to suck money away from the useful work that they are doing in favour of a national, bureaucratically organised, centralised scheme. It does not make sense, of course. But that is the opposite of what is being proposed—that these local voluntary schemes should remain and expand and that they should receive an infusion of central funds but that, subject to the overall parameters of the scheme, they would administer them themselves locally through their own agencies.
I believe, in a nutshell, that voluntary work should be part of the training for life and, subject to the qualifications which I have been careful to mention, I hope that the Minister will now seriously explore the practicalities of implementing such a scheme.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am delighted that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has raised this matter on the Adjournment. He will not expect me to be drawn into dealing with his asides about the Government's economic strategy. We can leave that to another day. The subject that we are discussing is an important one, and I intend to limit myself to it.
It is fair to say that a national community service has always been a matter of substantial interest to me. I can recall that when I sat on the Opposition Benches quite soon after I was elected to the House in 1974, my first letter to a Prime Minister—in that case the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) —was on a matter to do with a national community service of some sort. I have searched in my files, but I cannot find it. No doubt if we looked in the annals of Downing Street we should find what I wrote and what the right hon. Gentleman wrote in reply.
In general, I have always thought that there was a need—perhaps today an even greater need—for our young people to understand what is involved in being part of a democratic society. By that I mean that there are duties and obligations which are incumbent upon every citizen, and those duties and obligations ensure the freedom that we all enjoy. Being a citizen is a two-way business. One has to put something in and, of course, one gets something out as well. But a contribution has to be made.
Judging by the hon. Gentleman's remarks, he is as aware as I am that there are certain elements in Great Britain to whom any mention of a voluntary national community service is anathema. Subsequent to the hon. Gentleman's early-day motion, I have no doubt that he received a number of brickbats suggesting that he was barking up the wrong tree. The reason is that the hon. Gentleman's idea does not fit in with the general scheme of things of those elements. The one-nation concept, which I hold close to my political beliefs, is alien to their objectives. But they are not to the hon. Gentleman's.
It could be argued—and I have no doubt that it will be argued more and more vehemently—that in the light of the breakdown of law and order in some of our cities the need for a national community service of some sort becomes that much greater. It is a sad list—Bristol, Brixton, Southall, Toxteth, Moss Side and even, in a small way, my constituency yesterday evening.
I expect that there will be more expressions of opinion in favour of proposals on the lines of a national community service. However people react to these incidents, there can be no excuse, in my view, for what happened in the riots. There are no excuses. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman did himself justice when he sought to give explanations. To destroy the property and livelihoods of others—that is what has been happening in our country during the last week or so—is wholly unforgiveable, whatever the motives.
It is fair to say that the debate on a national community service was gaining momentum before these incidents took place. It is also fair to say that one of the first people to raise the matter publicly was my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). That was followed by the debating document from Youth Call to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That, in turn, was followed by the early-day motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir Hugh Fraser) and others of my


hon. Friends calling for an investigation into the whole matter. That was, in turn, followed by the hon. Gentleman's early day motion, signed by many of his hon. Friends, which was followed by an amendment to his motion tabled by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon).
The Government genuinely welcome this debate. At the end of the day, however, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, we need what I would describe as positive conclusions. The Government would like a set of proposals which they can examine closely and then decide upon. I intend to raise now certain questions that will be discussed in the debate throughout the country. The first is whether any such scheme should be voluntary or compulsory. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that, in his view, it should be voluntary. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government are opposed to a compulsory scheme. It is fair, however, to ask whether the young people who would benefit from such a scheme might decide not to participate. One questions, therefore, whether those who would gain the greatest advantage might not slip through the net.
I put as a debating point whether the wish for the scheme to be as widespread as possible, is compatible with the desire for it to be voluntary. Another question to which we have to address ourselves is whether there is scope for a national scheme of community benefit. Are there enough positions or jobs—call them what you will—for participants to take up? It would seem at this stage—I say this advisedly—that there are. A recent report by Enrico Colombatto of the London School of Economics, suggests that there are 850,000 such placements in community work. However, we need more information.
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman made about substitution. I hope that he accepts that if there are any complaints under the youth opportunities programme about substitution they are immediately investigated by the Manpower Services Commission. If the allegation proves correct, such a scheme comes to an end.
The hon. Gentleman will, I think, agree that through the youth opportunities programme the community enterprise programme and Community Industry there will be 150,000 participants this year in the placements under these programmes. He will also agree that there are numerous charities and voluntary bodies up and down the land which already provide many more such opportunities. I think that it is impossible to calculate how many there are because they are, by nature, private organisations.
The third question is what the cost of a national scheme of community service would be. Taking a figure of 800,000 places in the scheme—which may be an overestimate—the estimated cost is more than £600 million. It is very much an estimate at this stage. That is to be compared with the cost of the YOP this year, with 450,000 places, of £320 million, and it does not take into account the fact that there may be residential costs in addition to the cost of the programme.
The next point at which we must look is whether such a scheme could be run efficiently and effectively. We believe that it would need a very large number of supervisors—perhaps as many as 80,000. For the scheme to be effective. they would need to be of very high calibre. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I would disagree about that.
However, it is fair to say that in other countries such exist, although they may be of a slightly different kind. As

a result of the general debate taking place, I hope that we shall have evaluations of these schemes. It would be sensible to examine their workings carefully.
In the event that we go down this road, we must do so only in the sure knowledge that we are creating something that will be properly run and of benefit not only to the community at large but, particularly, to the young people concerned. In that context, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be a great mistake to abandon what I would describe as successful programmes—the YOP in particular—only to put in their place something which had not been properly thought out at this stage.
The quality of the YOP has increased very substantially. I pay my respects to those who have operated that programme, because it has grown apace. At the same time as growing in quantity, it has grown substantially in quality.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the allowance of £23·50 a week. I should like to leave that debate to another day. However, despite what he and several of his hon. Friends say about the allowance of £23·50, the present estimate is that some 9,000 young people per week are joining the programme. If the sum of £23·50 were a major deterrent, the numbers joining would not be anything like as high.
I reiterate the Government's welcome to this debate today and the debate in the country at large. In a veiled way, the hon. Gentleman referred to what I would describe as the wholly negative attitude displayed by some bodies, such as, for example, Youthaid, to the early-day motion, and indeed, to the general debate. I reject that negative attitude, too, although I suppose that it is fair to say that, having read the letter from the director of Youthaid to The Guardian in May, I am not entirely surprised by it. When she said
I find it entirely amazing that people like David Steel, Michael Meacher, Cardinal Hume, Peter Parker, and Mrs. Jane Prior are willing to associate themselves with such a debate
it seemed to me to demonstrate a somewhat closed mind. Let us face the fact that the people concerned come from all parts of the political spectrum. They are leaders in their own way. If they have come together to discuss something, there must be a reason for that debate, because they are wholly reasonable people.
I hope that the debate will continue in the country at large and that positive conclusions will come forward. At that stage the Government will consider whether to proceed on the lines set out by the hon. Gentleman, to expand the number of YOP places or to take another course. That is the position which I hold.

Mr. Meacher: I thank the Minister for an extremely positive, constructive and helpful speech. I listened to his reply carefully. If those who wish to advance the scheme that I have described were to undertake an examination of the possibility of pioneering the scheme and were to pay particular attention to quantifying the results, costs and inputs, would the hon. Gentleman value that approach?

Mr. Morrison: I do not wish to pour cold water on anything. Much would depend on the nature of the scheme, the area in which it was contemplated to pioneer it, and how many people would be involved. I am a reasonably open-minded guy. I always say that I operate an open-door policy. I do not know what will be involved in the scheme. I have to consider the balances. The hon.
Gentleman is an ex-Minister and he will understand that as well as I do. If the hon. Gentleman wants to see me about such a scheme, I shall be pleased to see him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Three o'clock.